Spring Break
City of Eau Claire could spend money more wisely
Security cameras infringe on funds, not on privacy
Issue date: 10/29/09 Section: Editorial/Opinion
Between stores, restaurants and places of work, people are on camera more than they might be aware of. So the city's decision to set aside $60,000 in the 2010 budget for the implementation of security cameras in public places does not infringe on the privacy of citizens.
However, it may infringe on funds that could be spent on things to be used for more important things in a relatively safe Eau Claire.
The first problem with plans for the cameras is they will be set in areas deemed high risk for crime.
The police department's idea of high risk is questionable.
One of the target areas for the cameras will be Water Street, a place we feel will do little good.
The fact is most minor crimes that occur on Water Street are the result of intoxication. Even if one knows they are under the watchful eye of the camera, it probably will not stop them from slugging someone in a drunken rage. Not to mention there are already countless officers on Water Street on any given night.
That we feel is the most effective measure to take against crime. If areas are known for crime, then officers should be concentrated there. If that doesn't help, then nothing will.
Another 'perk' of the cameras, police say, is that they will reduce the number of officers needed to patrol. However, there are no mentions of layoffs or cuts to officers. So if less officers are needed to patrol, what will they be doing? Could those officers just not patrol the crime areas instead of spending an extra $60,000?
Also, we feel the proposal for the cameras may leave out long-term hidden costs. If the city decides to keep the cameras in place, will people be watching the cameras all day? If so, that would mean another person who would have to be paid.
If the city is going to follow through with this security plan, they are at least doing the right thing by letting people know they are being watched. The last thing we need is hidden surveillance. But, overall we feel the plan will fall short of its benevolent intentions and simply cost the city more than it can afford in desperate financial times.
However, it may infringe on funds that could be spent on things to be used for more important things in a relatively safe Eau Claire.
The first problem with plans for the cameras is they will be set in areas deemed high risk for crime.
The police department's idea of high risk is questionable.
One of the target areas for the cameras will be Water Street, a place we feel will do little good.
The fact is most minor crimes that occur on Water Street are the result of intoxication. Even if one knows they are under the watchful eye of the camera, it probably will not stop them from slugging someone in a drunken rage. Not to mention there are already countless officers on Water Street on any given night.
That we feel is the most effective measure to take against crime. If areas are known for crime, then officers should be concentrated there. If that doesn't help, then nothing will.
Another 'perk' of the cameras, police say, is that they will reduce the number of officers needed to patrol. However, there are no mentions of layoffs or cuts to officers. So if less officers are needed to patrol, what will they be doing? Could those officers just not patrol the crime areas instead of spending an extra $60,000?
Also, we feel the proposal for the cameras may leave out long-term hidden costs. If the city decides to keep the cameras in place, will people be watching the cameras all day? If so, that would mean another person who would have to be paid.
If the city is going to follow through with this security plan, they are at least doing the right thing by letting people know they are being watched. The last thing we need is hidden surveillance. But, overall we feel the plan will fall short of its benevolent intentions and simply cost the city more than it can afford in desperate financial times.
Be the first to comment on this story