San Francisco has been powerless to stop graffiti tagging.

What’s infuriated victims is the lack of consequences when taggers are caught and prosecuted. San Francisco judges seem unconcerned. Convicted offenders have often been sentenced to community service, which, critics say, isn’t even well supervised.

Well, hello taggers, and welcome to a new day in San Francisco.

This week City Attorney Dennis Herrera announced that his office has won a civil judgment against one of San Francisco’s most infamous graffiti vandals. A judge agreed that Terry Cozy, whose tags are COZE, COZE ONE, COZE1 and COZ, among others, has caused more than $50,000 in damages and must pay the city for damages, penalties and attorney’s fees.

The total bill — $217,831.64 — payable to San Francisco on Feb. 15, 2016.

Put that in your spray can.

Deputy City Attorney Jill Cannon, who steered the process, is delighted.

“I don’t think it will stop graffiti in San Francisco, but I hope it makes people think twice,” Cannon said. “We want people to know that when you damage property, there are consequences — maybe beyond what they anticipated.”

And Herrera’s office is serious about collecting the money. The bill must be paid this year or an annual interest payment of 10 percent will apply. The city can also garnishee her wages or seize her property.

Herrera said it was a collaborative effort among the Department of Public Works, San Francisco police, Municipal Transportation Agency and Board of Supervisors President London Breed.

“The city spends upwards of $20 million a year on graffiti cleanup. That’s unconscionable,” Herrera said. “Let the taggers foot the bill for their mischief.”

The six-figure judgment surprised even Breed, whose March 2014 legislation overhauled the city’s graffiti policies to allow Herrera to seek civil damages.

No art to tagging

“I would never have imagined it would be this high,” she said. “But we want to make this a big deal. We can’t let criminals get comfortable.”

Breed says she supports actual graffiti artists, who use permitted spaces to create inventive murals. Taggers just paint their name over and over. There’s no art to that.

That’s the catch-22 for taggers. Their reputation is based on repeatedly posting the same tag. Marty Ferreira, the city’s top graffiti cop, has been instrumental in identifying chronic offenders.

Ferreira’s database of taggers, much of which has been created by residents who use the city’s SF311 smartphone app to send photos, has been key to making the civil case.

Asked about some kind of plea deal, Herrera was unsympathetic.

“Right now we are focused on recovery, not what-ifs,” he said. “We have a variety of remedies, and we are going to use them to get that judgment.”

Lady ‘almost in tears’

As unpopular as tagging is, some may feel the six-figure fine is too onerous.

Breed says she has an answer.

“I had a lady come to me almost in tears,“ she said. “Her building was a target and it was tagged constantly. She said, ‘I’m not wealthy. I have one tenant. That and Social Security are my only income. If I can’t clean it up, the city sends me a bill and threatens to put a lien on my house.‘

“These (taggers) are destroying people’s property and not thinking about the effect they are causing.“

They will now.

C.W. Nevius is a San Francisco Chronicle columnist. His column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. E-mail: cwnevius@sfchronicle.com. Twitter: @cwnevius