Mr McLean, of Narellan Vale, said recent reports suggesting Camden would be a good candidate for a legal graffiti wall had angered him.

``I have been working with a number of councils and assisting them in getting these walls removed,'' he said.

Mr McLean said once walls were removed, graffiti rates actually dropped by between 30 and 50 per cent after an initial spike in retaliation.

He said graffiti walls tended to attract graffiti vandals from ``miles around'', and this had an impact on surrounding areas as well.

``Only a few Camden residents would use it.

``Those using it will predominantly be people who need to travel one or two hours first just to get to Camden.

``We have seen this big problem in Casula, where the surrounding neighbourhood is covered in tagging and graffiti. There is not one piece of evidence that proves a legal wall reduces graffiti.''

Cameron McAuliffe, a research fellow from the University of Western Sydney's Centre for Cultural Research, said it was too simplistic to think of a graffiti wall as just a catalyst for further problems.

``When legal graffiti walls are put in they are put in as a harm minimisation strategy,'' he said. ``But the legal walls are only as good as the programs that are set up around them.

``People tend to concentrate on the wall and not the program. I am not denying that a legal wall may cause some extra graffiti.''

Dr McAuliffe said these programs, run by a senior artist or a youth worker, could encourage graffiti artists and vandals to make something of their lives through graffiti.

``They could help them move into more productive areas such as design, and help them become more productive members of society,'' he said.

Camden police crime manager Paul Albury said a graffiti wall trial at Liverpool was ``enormously unsuccessful''.

``There is no place for them in Camden. They send the wrong message to young people,'' he said.

``It is visually offensive and it is a crime.''