Pittsburgh City Council preliminarily approved a measure Wednesday to crack down on graffiti… Pittsburgh City Council preliminarily approved a measure Wednesday to crack down on graffiti artists. The measure would make it illegal for stores to sell spray paint, indelible markers, etching acid or etching tools to anyone under 18 without a parent or legal guardian, and would also criminalize possession of such items for minors unless a guardian were present.

Stores and minors alike would face first a warning, then a $300 fine.

As any property owner can attest, graffiti is a scourge. It lowers property values, can cause people to feel threatened and is a generally destructive force in a neighborhood or business area.

City Council’s measure, however, is not the way to address the problem. Criminalizing possession of Sharpies won’t cut down on graffiti one bit. It may take in some revenue for the city, but it won’t deter any tagger with even a modicum of ingenuity or drive to leave a mark.

A parent who was unaware of a teen’s proclivities toward unauthorized art could be coerced into purchasing markers or paint for their child with laughable ease by a determined young tagger.

The underaged are known for their resourcefulness in obtaining age-restricted items, like coercing unscrupulous twentysomethings into turning a healthy profit hawking black-market markers and paint on the streets.

Calling graffiti a teen problem is myopic at best. There are plenty of taggers over 18. For instance, Michael Monack, infamous for his “Mook” tags throughout the city, is 20.

Criminalizing accouterments of crime is an inadequate way to prevent it. The best way to address the graffiti problem in the city is through legal, productive outlets for budding public artists. Some progress has been made on this front, most notably the legalizing of graffiti along the Eliza Furnace Trail.

Some excellent alternatives, however, have been dismissed. Members of the Sprout Fund, a community nonprofit group that funds local artistic ventures, were roundly dismissed when they presented an informational session to City Council about public murals to be painted by local young artists.

There is, of course, a difference between frustrated urban artists and punk kids flouting the law just for the sake of doing so. The first group could be won over by public creative outlets. The second will always find a way to destroy public property, and no amount of ever-increasing legal recourse will ever stop them.