This is why Oakland needs to start using graffiti tracker like San Diego.

http://www.211sandiego.org/reporting-graffiti

Another article:

http://www.countynewscenter.com/news/county-wins-golden-watchdog-leading-graffiti-fight.

Are current Oakland graffiti abatement efforts cost effective?

"Oakland spent $1,040,000 on graffiti abatement in fiscal year 2011-2012, according to a recent article in the San Francisco Business Times. The article noted that the city employs three building painters who “spend most of their time covering up graffiti on city buildings” as well as a four-member full-time abatement crew. Yet other than noting approximately $75,000 in paint costs, there’s no breakdown in the article of how the rest of that $1m+ was spent. It’s unclear, for instance, if the $965,000 left over after subtracting the cost of paint went to pay for the seven employees—which would work out to $137,857.14 each—or if there were other, unnamed expenditures.

Some propose more murals to deter taggers. Aside from the fact that we can't paint a mural on every building, freeway sign or stop sign, here's an example of tagging over a mural that was posted today.

Hey Matt, I saw your post on the graffiti on the Wakefield Building. It's shameful. It's costing Oakland over a million dollars in much needed money to remove tagging. That doesn't even include tagging on private property. I'd like us to try tracking the tags.
You'll recognize this idiot's work:

http://thatsthehookup.com/graffiti/a-mile-in-mikes-shoes-featuring-mike-dfm/