The sentiment behind Spokane’s new antigraffiti law is commendable, but you have to sympathize with anyone who, after being vandalized, is at risk of being commanded by the city to clean it up – now – or else.

“Victimizing the victim” is how some speakers put it at Monday’s City Council meeting.

Nevertheless, the council approved the no-nonsense ordinance that gives a property owner 10 days to clean up graffiti on a home or business. Those who refuse could wind up in court and be forced to pay for a cleanup arranged by the city.

It won’t work that harshly, city officials promise. Most people are more than willing to get rid of graffiti that defaces their property, and the city is eager to help. Volunteer assistance is available for the elderly, the poor and the disabled, and enforcement authorities will be understanding when hardship or exigent circumstances make the 10-day deadline impractical. So say city officials.

That’s all good, but it sets forth an understanding that isn’t necessarily reflected in the actual words of the ordinance. Among other things, those words describe any unauthorized marking as the kind of graffiti that would justify enforcement action if necessary. And 10 days is 10 days.

The City Council was not being heartless. Vandalism ignored is likely to breed more of the same, often escalating to more serious forms of property damage and crime. It’s been more than 25 years since Rutgers criminologist George L. Kelling laid out his “broken windows” theory about public order:

If an abandoned building has a broken window that goes unrepaired, Kelling posited, all the windows will soon be broken. Neglect sends a message that the owner doesn’t care. Promptly repairing the first damages has the opposite effect.

That – not gang activity, which accounts for a small and shrinking percentage of Spokane’s graffiti – is the main reason the City Council needed to act.

But two questions arise:

If the new ordinance provides a reasonable approach for private property, will the city be equally intolerant of unauthorized markings that show up on, say, the footings of the Monroe Street Bridge, or utility boxes?

If this action is justified in the interest of the community, why shouldn’t the community foot the bill?

As to the first question, officials pledged at the City Council meeting that they expect no less of themselves than they do of citizens. We’ll see.

As to the second question, as anyone now wrestling with a budget at any level of government will tell you, good luck.

Everyone with any civic pride should welcome a program that will curb vandalism. But in the interest of consistent and evenhanded law enforcement, the City Council needs to keep a close eye on how this measure works out in practice.