William Matt
It is my pledge to always seek justice on behalf of the City of Lansing. As your neighbor, I will work diligently to find responsible solutions to our challenges, and lead with a vision guided by a hope of an ever-better city.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Camera Vote Tonight!
Well, by the email and blog posts at LSJ.com on the camera story, it seems to be capturing the attention of many Lansing residents. In my short 4 months, it is definitely the most heated topic to come before City Council. I wanted to make a short post about how and why I will vote tonight, as I currently stand.
First, my prediction is the proposal will fail. I don't think it will be close. Sandy is leaning against, Derrick and Carol are firmly against, and I don't think Brian will vote in favor of it either. That leaves only a possible 4 votes for, well shy of the needed 6 to pass.
The top 5 reasons and arguments I am considering in voting FOR the Act 99 funding are:
1) I believe in providing the best possible technology and tools available for the police to do their jobs, as effectively and efficiently as possible. This is yet another tool for them to help fight crime and keep Lansing residents safe. It won't eliminate crime, but neither do police cars. They just make the police more effective in doing their jobs.
2) Act 99 provides low cost funding for infrastructure and capital improvement projects for municipalities. I would much rather pay for this over 5 years than have other departments or projects cut from this years budget, as the Mayor has indicated may happen. The legal issue behind what he proposes is certainly arguable, though I'm told that since the budget we pass is not a "line item" budget, he has the flexibility to do what he says he will.
3) Neighbors in high crime areas are asking for assistance, cameras included. I spoke to a neighborhood watch captain this morning specifically to get her opinion on cameras. She is all for them, and is astounded and resentful that there is opposition. She is working to mobilize her neighbors to sign and speak out on behalf of cameras tonight. I still say, put them in areas where residents want them, and if residents don't want them, find another one that does.
4) It is not "Cops" versus "Cameras". Despite what you would hear, the issue before us is not an either-or proposition. We are not being asked to fund one or another, we are being asked to approve a specific funding mechanism for cameras. Everyone would love to have more police on the streets, though statistically we are in the higher range of officers per resident compared to similar cities. Though we all support more officers, this is not an option before us at this time. If a resolution came before us for more officers, I would support it. This would have to be a big expenditure though to have an impact. If say, 2 officers were added, my fear is that it would have little or no impact on how many officers are on the streets, and in your neighborhoods. It could be absorbed just to reduce overtime. I would think that the minimum number of additional police officers needed for any substantial impact would be ten officers, at about a million dollars a year.
5) The technology we have does have some problems, and we are working on resolving them. The cameras not being bought with Act 99, not only would not speed up fixing these problems, but could potentially slow down fixing these problems, if money was diverted in the exiting budget to pay for the fixes. Yes, we have some equipment not working perfectly. It never will be perfect. If we waited until it was all perfect before we bought something new, then we would never get anything new.
6) Ok, I said 5, but now I'm on a roll! Privacy advocates claim this is illegal search and an invasion of privacy. I worked in the private security industry for many years. In a typical Meijer store there are maybe 40 cameras, and there are still areas of the 200,000 square foot store that you can't see. So Ten cameras covering 30 square miles on public street corners is an invasion of your privacy? I respectfully disagree.
7) Lansing should not be in a wait and see mode, we should be proactive and a leader in the world. That goes for economic development and for crime fighting strategies. If we waited for some residents and all council members to approve a technology, we would still be using morse code instead of radios and telephones! Some people think that by standing still, you are actually doing something. My position is that by standing still, you are actually moving backwards.
8) It is a small price to pay for the potential good. I have heard about the price being too high, but where were these complaints when we approved a 30 million dollar a year police budget. $75,000 a year to pay back is one quarter of one percent. .0025. Is that too much to pay for safety, reducing crimes, and reducing victims of crimes? Is $100,000 too much to pay? As long as we are setting a price tag on safety, what is your threshold...$500, $1,000? Seriously, I want to know?
9) Crime will move around the corner. The study that we received stated that crime does move when displaced, but when it reoccurs, it is reduced significantly. Criminals have a hard time getting up and running and comfortable in the new area. That is certainly something to keep an eye on. As a bonus, not only does direct crime go down when it is displaced, but neighboring areas see a reduction as well, an unintended positive side effect of camera use. Besides, I would rather have crime on the run, than have it comfortable and accepted.
First, my prediction is the proposal will fail. I don't think it will be close. Sandy is leaning against, Derrick and Carol are firmly against, and I don't think Brian will vote in favor of it either. That leaves only a possible 4 votes for, well shy of the needed 6 to pass.
The top 5 reasons and arguments I am considering in voting FOR the Act 99 funding are:
1) I believe in providing the best possible technology and tools available for the police to do their jobs, as effectively and efficiently as possible. This is yet another tool for them to help fight crime and keep Lansing residents safe. It won't eliminate crime, but neither do police cars. They just make the police more effective in doing their jobs.
2) Act 99 provides low cost funding for infrastructure and capital improvement projects for municipalities. I would much rather pay for this over 5 years than have other departments or projects cut from this years budget, as the Mayor has indicated may happen. The legal issue behind what he proposes is certainly arguable, though I'm told that since the budget we pass is not a "line item" budget, he has the flexibility to do what he says he will.
3) Neighbors in high crime areas are asking for assistance, cameras included. I spoke to a neighborhood watch captain this morning specifically to get her opinion on cameras. She is all for them, and is astounded and resentful that there is opposition. She is working to mobilize her neighbors to sign and speak out on behalf of cameras tonight. I still say, put them in areas where residents want them, and if residents don't want them, find another one that does.
4) It is not "Cops" versus "Cameras". Despite what you would hear, the issue before us is not an either-or proposition. We are not being asked to fund one or another, we are being asked to approve a specific funding mechanism for cameras. Everyone would love to have more police on the streets, though statistically we are in the higher range of officers per resident compared to similar cities. Though we all support more officers, this is not an option before us at this time. If a resolution came before us for more officers, I would support it. This would have to be a big expenditure though to have an impact. If say, 2 officers were added, my fear is that it would have little or no impact on how many officers are on the streets, and in your neighborhoods. It could be absorbed just to reduce overtime. I would think that the minimum number of additional police officers needed for any substantial impact would be ten officers, at about a million dollars a year.
5) The technology we have does have some problems, and we are working on resolving them. The cameras not being bought with Act 99, not only would not speed up fixing these problems, but could potentially slow down fixing these problems, if money was diverted in the exiting budget to pay for the fixes. Yes, we have some equipment not working perfectly. It never will be perfect. If we waited until it was all perfect before we bought something new, then we would never get anything new.
6) Ok, I said 5, but now I'm on a roll! Privacy advocates claim this is illegal search and an invasion of privacy. I worked in the private security industry for many years. In a typical Meijer store there are maybe 40 cameras, and there are still areas of the 200,000 square foot store that you can't see. So Ten cameras covering 30 square miles on public street corners is an invasion of your privacy? I respectfully disagree.
7) Lansing should not be in a wait and see mode, we should be proactive and a leader in the world. That goes for economic development and for crime fighting strategies. If we waited for some residents and all council members to approve a technology, we would still be using morse code instead of radios and telephones! Some people think that by standing still, you are actually doing something. My position is that by standing still, you are actually moving backwards.
8) It is a small price to pay for the potential good. I have heard about the price being too high, but where were these complaints when we approved a 30 million dollar a year police budget. $75,000 a year to pay back is one quarter of one percent. .0025. Is that too much to pay for safety, reducing crimes, and reducing victims of crimes? Is $100,000 too much to pay? As long as we are setting a price tag on safety, what is your threshold...$500, $1,000? Seriously, I want to know?
9) Crime will move around the corner. The study that we received stated that crime does move when displaced, but when it reoccurs, it is reduced significantly. Criminals have a hard time getting up and running and comfortable in the new area. That is certainly something to keep an eye on. As a bonus, not only does direct crime go down when it is displaced, but neighboring areas see a reduction as well, an unintended positive side effect of camera use. Besides, I would rather have crime on the run, than have it comfortable and accepted.
Labels: cameras, crime, lansing, police, safety
# posted by Bill Matt @ 11:19 AM 
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
