Graffiti News

West Hartford, Connecticut, has billed a large personal injury law firm for removing stencilled chalk messages from public sidewalks. The Hartford Courant reported on 17 August 2026 that the town charged Trantolo & Trantolo $742.16 and told the firm to pay by 24 August.

The bill was itemised to the penny

Rick Ledwith, the West Hartford town manager, told the Hartford Courant the town assessed the cleanup cost exactly and billed it: labour for two employees for four hours at $56.27 per hour. Public Works in West Hartford identified markings at approximately 24 crosswalk locations throughout the town centre.

"The town has made clear to Trantolo & Trantolo that defacing public sidewalks with commercial advertising is unacceptable and that the town takes the matter seriously," Ledwith wrote in an email quoted by the Courant. "We have sought reimbursement for the $742.16 cost incurred by the Town to remove the material and have advised the firm to remit payment by August 24th."

Unlike Hartford, West Hartford decided not to issue a citation.

What the sidewalks actually said

The messages were neatly stencilled at crosswalks, intersections and other public spaces, and carried road safety statistics. Among those reported by the Hartford Courant: "Look Both Ways Before You Cross"; "633 pedestrians have been hit in Hartford in the last five years"; "There have been 24,468 crashes at Hartford intersections in the last 10 years"; and "Nearly 800,000 people a year seek medical attention for dog bites."

The name Trantolo & Trantolo appeared in large letters at the end of each message, with "personal injury lawyers" in small letters underneath. The messages were slated to stay up for a week.

The cities and the firm disagree about what this was

Hartford issued the firm a $90 fine and filed a complaint of improper advertising with the Statewide Grievance Committee, the body that handles alleged ethics violations by attorneys. According to the Courant, that complaint alleges the writings put pedestrians at risk of injury through distraction.

Hartford Mayor Arunan Arulampalam said people are sick of advertising by personal injury lawyers and that the markings showed disrespect for Hartford and for the city's aesthetics. He said visitors to Bushnell Park do not want to look down and read a message about slip and falls. The mayor also said the messages would be considered graffiti or vandalism if a young person had done them.

The firm did not back down. In a statement, chief executive Scott Trantolo said: "Calling these temporary safety messages vandalism misses the entire purpose and nature of what was done." The firm said it used no permanent paint and no materials intended to damage public property, that the messages were created with temporary chalk and power-washing techniques, and that a cleanup plan existed from the outset. After concerns were raised, it accelerated that cleanup and the messages were removed.

Trantolo added: "If a temporary message on a sidewalk gets people talking about how we can make Hartford and Connecticut roads safer, then we believe it has started an important conversation. The chalk will disappear. The need for safer roads will not." The firm said it hopes the controversy leads to a broader discussion of traffic safety and offered to work with local officials.

The firm cleaned up its messages in Hartford. West Hartford removed its own, Ledwith telling the Courant the town "jumped right on it" because of its brand new centre.

What this argument means for street art

The dispute is about permission, not materials. The methods Trantolo & Trantolo describes — stencils, washable chalk, marks made by cleaning rather than painting — sit close to techniques street artists have used for years, including reverse graffiti, where an image is produced by removing dirt from a surface rather than adding anything to it. The absence of lasting physical damage is the core of the firm's defence. Both cities treated the work as unauthorised marking anyway.

That is why the mayor's own comparison stands out. Saying the messages would be called graffiti or vandalism if a young person had made them can be read as an acknowledgment that enforcement tracks who is marking the street as much as what the mark is. The opposite argument is also available: using public space for unpaid commercial advertising is a different act from individual expression, whatever the medium. The Hartford Courant's reporting does not settle that disagreement, and neither does this article.

One thing did become unusually concrete. Removal cost is the argument cities most often make against unauthorised marking, and here the number is on the record: $742.16 for roughly 24 locations, eight person-hours of labour. Published figures at that resolution are rare.

Related on Wallscape

Wallscape's map shows murals and graffiti people have located and logged, and the feed shows recent additions. Painting without permission is not something we encourage. If a wall or a street mark is worth remembering, photograph it and record where it is.

Source: Hartford Courant, reported by Pamela McLoughlin, 17 August 2026.