Somebody Will Be Watching You, Maybe

Recently, City Council approved the purchase of security surveillance cameras for the Downtown Business District of Hamtramck through existing funds and approval of a loan. There seems to be contentions floating around the city to this action, so, let's examine them:

The Reason For The Cameras

Crime in the area is prevalent, the likes of purse snatching and armed robberies. Since the majority of consumers come from Detroit, the presentation of a safe and secure shopping area would increase business revenues for the local merchants.

The Challenge

1. The city is broke. There was no financial analysis for the purchase of the cameras, or rather, how would the investment in security cameras generate a profitable return for the city? Nobody even addressed the dollar for dollar ratio on the future benefits of the cameras. There were no presentations on the social benefits the city would gain in this transaction. What will be the interest rate and penalties of this loan?

2. The business district is loosing business. The storefronts on Jos Campau are owned by a handful of property owners. Rent is so exorbitant that business are leaving by the droves. This means the cameras would be watching the vacant properties. The properties being vacant benefit the few property owners as taxes are assessed at a lower level and the loss of revenue could be calculated as tax write-offs. Quintessentially, the property owners are getting free security at the expense of the city.

3. The city has not formulated policy. Who is going to have the authority to maintain the records of the tapes? How will the tapes be stored? Should the tapes be preserved for 14 days or 30 days? Will the public have access? How much will it cost to oversee the operations and what is the funding source. There are numerous legal issues at stake that have not been raised because there was no legal analysis, that would be another $250 an hour, probably in the realms of 20 hours, expense.

4. Who will be watching the live streams or snapshots? Ok, you have a security camera. Great. Now, what good is it if you do not have a real person watching and monitoring all activities? Let's just say a crime has been committed. No one is survieling. This means that the cost of labor insurmountably increases because, now, after the crime is reported, someone has to go over the loops to pinpoint the activity. By that time, the perpetrators are long gone.

5. Where was the city a few years ago? I attended numerous consortia and training sessions of the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Looking back, Hamtramck was never in attendance. These sessions were instructional for local governments to apply for federal grants for these surveillance cameras. Since 2003, the feds have doled out over $23 billion to combat crime to local governments. Liberty, Kansas, with a population of 95, received $5,000 to buy a G2 Sentinal camera. Scottsbluff, Nebraska, with a population of 14,000, got $180,000 to buy closed circuit cameras. Hamtramck never asked for a penny.

6. Privacy. There has been no discussion on the issues of privacy so I shall not address it at this time.

My solution would be to invest in signs that say "This area is under surveillance". It would be just as effective and would cost a whole lot less. Then, I would go seek out federal funding to fund a more efficient and inclusive city surveillance project that would entail the expansion of police resources, and ask the property owners on Jos Campau to entertain the idea of reducing the rent of the storefront properties so more businesses could stay and move in the city. If rent was not so high, business owners would be able to afford their own surveillance systems.