I wonder, grafitti aside[0], how much of the social panic around "vandalism" can be tied to similar dynamics. Not necessarily outright rackets like this one but

I wonder, grafitti aside[0], how much of the social panic around "vandalism" can be tied to similar dynamics. Not necessarily outright rackets like this one but perverse incentives at least. Also it's easy to see how slashing a seat or breaking a window is vandalism but somehow we've decided anti-homeless architecture and literring pedestrian spaces with subsidized rental e-scooters isn't even if it also drastically reduces quality of life by modifying shared public spaces. [0]: I dislike how grafitti and defacement is lumped in with functional damage as "vandalism" except for rare cases like road signs. I like to think that there is a tangible difference between changing the appearance of something and damaging it in such a way that it is no longer fully fit for purpose. Even if one believes that "maintaining property value" is a primary purpose of a building's wall or "providing ad space" is a primary purpose of a train exterior, I'd argue that there is a clear moral difference.