Bill Matt

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.

Labels: cameras, crime, lansing, police, safety

Today the Mayor held a press conference announcing a six point plan to increase police presence in the city in an effort to reduce crime. This is most certainly due to the recent rash of homicides in Lansing. Last year we had a total of 6 in the city. This year we are at 8 and counting. For the first half of last year we had 2, an increase of 300% over the first half of this year. Residents are demanding action, and the Mayor has responded.

The plan includes 10 video surveilance cameras at a price tag of $250,000.00, and one additional officer to work with neighborhood watch groups estimated at $100,000.00. The cameras will feature recording devices with video saved for 2 weeks, which will certainly help to investigate crimes after the fact. The main goal however is to deter crime in the ten hottest spots in the city. I would expect that at least one, maybe two, will be deployed in the 3rd ward.

This afternoon, City Council had the chance to question Chief of Staff Jerry Ambrose, and Police Chief Mark Alley. There were reassurances that training would be extensive and sensitive areas, such as your windows, would be blocked out, protecting your privacy.

Similar efforts are taking place all over the country:

Baltimore (LINK)

Other surveillance-camera systems in Baltimore have reportedly been successful crime-reduction tools in the areas in which they have been employed. The Downtown Partnership, for example, has had surveillance systems in place since 1996 in various places in the city center; the nonprofit downtown booster organization has 80 cameras nestled into well-marked areas.

And the ACLU has it's concerns:

But with the cameras come privacy concerns, and groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Privacy Information Center say that surveillance cameras fail to truly reduce crime in urban areas, are subject to abuse by government and law-enforcement officials (in a position paper on video-surveillance, the ACLU cites a case in which a Washington, D.C., police officer used the cameras to gather information on patrons of a local gay club), and have a “chilling effect” on public life.

And in Philadelphia (LINK):

PHILADELPHIA -- A year after the first city-owned police surveillance cameras came online at 12 crime hot spots, the results are inconclusive but encouraging, officials said.

Initial statistics compiled by the city suggest the cameras are reducing crime at key intersections while generating arrests for crimes that previously went undetected, according to a report Sunday in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

An additional 500 cameras are slated to be installed during the next two years, officials said.

So Lansing is far from the first to try this method of crime fighting. Several people spoke out today to voice concerns over privacy issues. One even called it a form of slavery. Please.

From my personal experience, I have had two Neighborhood Associations request cameras to help deter crime in their neighborhoods. Clearly there is a divide between people that want cameras and people that don't want cameras. I suggested to the administration that rather than look strictly at hard data and decide where to put cameras, they work with neighborhoods that want cameras initially, so as to lessen the soon to be heard public outcry.

I am a big fan of public safety. I think we should be upgrading our police technology to get the police the best tools available to get their jobs done. That includes cameras. In fact, part of the NAN program I am working on would eventually incorporate the technology infrastructure to support wireless cameras in neighborhoods. I also think that privacy issues must be strictly adhered to, and that no one's civil rights are infringed upon. Walking and talking in public, while being video taped, doesn't in my mind take away civil rights.

The Mayor's plan also calls for youth activities, family building, and strengthening neighborhood watches and associations. It is a wide ranging and ambitious plan, with cameras just a small part of the overall strategy. It will certainly get most of the press and scrutiny over the next few weeks. Council will have to approve the funding for these programs, so we will be looking for answers from the administration to your most pressing questions. Please let us know.

Labels: Bill Matt, cameras, lansing, lansing city council, police

Today's Lansing State Journal (LINK) has two articles about a large block party that took place on Saturday, and the city response.

Two things become evident in talking about the issue. One, the city block party authorization form was a mere formality and didn't have much input from neighbors or oversight by the administration. The Mayor has taken steps to eliminate this problem by asking Planning & Neighborhood Development to oversee a new process for approval which will include the Neighborhood Association and Police Department. The old method was simply a rubber stamp process primarily used to have public works deliver road barricades. What had been an easy yet lax application process will have much better oversight.

From what I've heard from residents involved in the neighborhood association was that this event was condoned and approved by the city, and in essence they are right.

The second thing that became evident to me was the lack of communication tools available to residents and how information is shared and responded to by the police department.

When I became aware of the block party plans Friday night, I tried to navigate the South Precinct phone system. A message from one supervisor indicated he was off work until December of 2006. I left a message and asked for a call back from another supervisor. When Saturday morning rolled around and I hadn't been contacted, I called central dispatch and spoke to a real person. I told them of the neighbor concerns, and was told that this was an authorized block party. Later Saturday afternoon I spoke to two officers in person at another neighborhood picnic. I told them of the party in Churchill, and asked that they share this information with their shift supervisors and pass it on to the next shift.

I felt like I had to jump through some hoops to share this information and then felt that my concerns were taken lightly. If the police had responded with some visable coverage at the block party earlier in the day, neighbors would have felt more secure, and maybe the crowd would not have grown so large and been kept under control. Where was the Community Policing officer? Instead of being proactive we ended up being reactive, having to call neighboring law enforcement agencies and brining out canine units to get the situation under control.

I voiced my concerns Monday to the Police Chief and the Mayor. Chief Alley indicated all communications should be directed to 483-4600 which is a number answered 24/7/365.

Enough bitching and moaning. where do we go from here?

As the title indicated, there are two directions. One, we continue the young versus old, black versus white divide, or two, we use this experience to come together and bridge these gaps. I will be actively pursuing option two. My hope is that tonight, after the block party permit and communications issues are addressed, we engage in a dialogue with all parties in the neighborhood. Communication is key, and I won't let one generation disrespect another, nor will I allow one group to stifle another. We are all in this as a community, and only by listening to each other will we be able to live together. We as a city have to do a better job, and we will.

Please click on the comments button below this post to tell me what you think.

Labels: block party, Churchill, police