BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                       



           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                   AB 576|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                                 THIRD READING


          Bill No:  AB 576
          Author:   Torres (D), et al
          Amended:  7/2/09 in Senate 
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE  :  7-0, 6/9/09
          AYES:  Leno, Benoit, Cedillo, Hancock, Huff, Steinberg,  
            Wright

           SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE  :  Senate Rule 28.8 

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  76-0, 4/30/09 - See last page for vote


           SUBJECT  :    Vandalism:  graffiti:  recovery of costs

           SOURCE  :     Los Angeles City Attorneys Office


           DIGEST  :    This bill allows governmental entities  
          responsible for the clean-up of property that has been  
          vandalized to receive restitution from a person who has  
          been convicted of or adjudicated of the vandalism.

          ANALYSIS  :    Existing law provides that in every case in  
          which a victim, as defined, has suffered economic loss as a  
          result of the defendant's or the juvenile offender's  
          conduct, the court is required to impose an order upon the  
          defendant or the juvenile offender to make restitution to  
          the victim or victims, as specified.

          This bill includes in the definition of "victim" for the  
                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                AB 576
                                                                Page  
          2

          purpose of restitution "any governmental entity that is  
          responsible for repairing, replacing, or restoring public  
          or privately owned property that has been defaced with  
          graffiti or other inscribed material as defined in  
          subdivision (e) of Section 594, and that has sustained an  
          economic loss as the result of a violation of Sections  
          594.3, 594.4, 640.5, 640.6 or 640.7 of the Penal Code."

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  Yes    
          Local:  No

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  7/1/09)

          Los Angeles City Attorney's Office (source) 
          American Federation of State, County and Municipal  
          Employees, AFL-CIO
          Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
          California Business Properties Association
          California District Attorneys Association
          City of Huntington Park
          City of Los Angeles
          City of Oxnard
          City of Santa Rosa
          LA County Probation Officers Union, AFSCME, Local 685
          League of California Cities
          Riverside Sheriffs' Association
          San Bernardino County Sheriff


           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    According to the author's office, 

               This bill attempts to address the problems caused by  
               graffiti.  Currently, government entities are not  
               considered victims when it comes to damages caused by  
               graffiti, even though they may be the ones incurring  
               the cost of cleaning it up.

               Graffiti is a costly and pervasive problem affecting  
               all residents, property owners, businesses, and public  
               agencies across the state.  The California Research  
               Bureau estimates that the statewide cost of graffiti  
               abatement is potentially upwards of $350 million  
               annually.  The majority of these costs are borne  
               entirely by local governments.  One of the main  







                                                                AB 576
                                                                Page  
          3

               reasons local governments continue to shoulder the  
               economic impact of graffiti is because cost recovery  
               procedures are too cumbersome and ineffective.

               While these numbers are staggering, perhaps more  
               disturbing is the power graffiti has to cause fear and  
               insecurity within a community.  The graffiti epidemic  
               is an assault on an individual's peace of mind, making  
               graffiti a social crime that directly targets the  
               quality of life and freedom citizens are both entitled  
               to and desire within their neighborhoods.  Graffiti,  
               distinct from many other crimes, requires proactive  
               enforcement and dedicated investigation.  However, the  
               ability of local law enforcement to diligently  
               investigate and prosecute individuals committing acts  
               of graffiti is hampered only by law enforcement's  
               limited resources.

               To be successful in our continued fight against  
               graffiti, it is critical that local governments are  
               able to recover costs of graffiti abatement via  
               criminal restitution.


           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  
          AYES:  Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Beall, Bill  
            Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield,  
            Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Chesbro,  
            Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, DeVore,  
            Duvall, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong,  
            Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick,  
            Gilmore, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill,  
            Huber, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Krekorian, Lieu,  
            Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava,  
            Niello, Nielsen, John A. Perez, V. Manuel Perez,  
            Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Silva,  
            Skinner, Solorio, Audra Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson,  
            Torres, Torrico, Tran, Villines, Yamada, Bass
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Carter, Miller, Nestande, Smyth


          RJG:nl  7/2/09   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE







                                                                AB 576
                                                                Page  
          4


                                ****  END  ****