XML FeedsVideo surveillance for Joseph Campau
Tuesday night, Hamtramck City Council will vote on a resolution authorizing a contract for the purchase $48,550 of video surveillance equipment by the Downtown Development Authority.
According to the resolution, ADT will provide four cameras. Three "to be placed along Jos. Campau between Holbrook and Caniff and one camera to be placed above 'Shoppers World' parking lot." The DDA is asking for $19,000 from the city and "$29,550 - $28,550 will be financed".
Video surveillance might seem like a good idea but all major studies show it doesn't reduce crime. Independent analyses of crime data in the UK, where surveillance systems are prevalent, show that "video surveillance has no statistically significant impact on crime". The preliminary US studies indicate "video surveillance system in the US little to no positive impact on crime".
So how is this a good idea? If we did a cost-benefit analysis on purchasing $48,550 of video surveillance equipment, based on the studies, we would not benefit in reduction of crime. In short, it's a waste of money.
Both the 2002 Welsh & Farrington study and the 2005 Gill & Spriggs study found that video surveillance appears to push crime 200-500 feet away from the cameras while the overall crime rate is unaffected. This is the unintended side effect, "pushing" crime away from the cameras and into the adjacent neighborhoods.
There are better ideas. The Department of Justice "best practices" to reduce crime are for more police patrols, more community policing, neighborhood watch, and improved communication between citizens and the police department.
Why not spend the $48,550 to police the DDA area on foot and bicycle patrols? Both are community policing and would make people feel safer in the district.
I think if we measured cost-benefit on both plans we'd find that the Department of Justice best practices would do more to reduce crime in Hamtramck than video surveillance.
There's also the issue of protecting our civil liberties. In February 2009, Cambridge, Massachusetts city council voted 9-0 against installing a video surveillance system with a $4.6M grant from the Department of Homeland Security. Marjorie Decker, a Cambridge city councilor, said, "Because of the slow erosion of our civil liberties since 9/11, it is important to raise questions regarding these cameras,”.
It is not advisable, necessary, or in the public interest to finance a video surveillance system for the DDA district. There are more effective ways to combat crime. Let's use our heads here and not jump on the surveillance bandwagon.
---
American Civil Liberties Union: EXPERT FINDINGS ON SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS
Welsh, Brandon C. and Farrington, David P., “Evidence-based Crime Prevention: the Effectiveness of CCTV.” Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal 2004, 6(2) 21-33.
Gill and Spriggs, “Assessing the Impact of CCTV.” (2005) Home Office Study. I relied primarily on Chapter 3: “Does CCTV Work: Its Impact on Crime and the Fear of Crime” for this section.
91 comments
Comment from: Roger [Visitor] 
To be brief:
1. 4 cameras wont cover much area although they may help figure out something that happens where there are no witnesses (such as a hit and run)
2. $50,000 for 4 cameras? even including the coaxial line and labor to install and a nice 4 channel VCR and Monitor (placed obviously at City hall) that price is outrageous! I dont say this lightly, either someone is a real idiot on getting price bids or someone is getting a kickback, which is it?
3. If they want cameras, they should have one each intersection where accidents occur as well as the 4 parking lots, this would give us about 14 cameras, we would need a minimum of 4 vcrs (4 channels each) and 1 monitor, tapes can be set to slow record and would be replaced and cataloged every week and should be retained for 6 months which would be 26x4=104 tapes rotating. I used to work at RGIS and we had the tapes rotated daily for best resolution.
1. 4 cameras wont cover much area although they may help figure out something that happens where there are no witnesses (such as a hit and run)
2. $50,000 for 4 cameras? even including the coaxial line and labor to install and a nice 4 channel VCR and Monitor (placed obviously at City hall) that price is outrageous! I dont say this lightly, either someone is a real idiot on getting price bids or someone is getting a kickback, which is it?
3. If they want cameras, they should have one each intersection where accidents occur as well as the 4 parking lots, this would give us about 14 cameras, we would need a minimum of 4 vcrs (4 channels each) and 1 monitor, tapes can be set to slow record and would be replaced and cataloged every week and should be retained for 6 months which would be 26x4=104 tapes rotating. I used to work at RGIS and we had the tapes rotated daily for best resolution.
06/23/09 @ 11:16
Roger, why would we spend all that money on a program that doesn't reduce crime?
Is it a good idea because it seems like a good idea? Do we not care about it's cost-benefit? Why are we buying equipment when, according to the Department of Justice, what we need is more community policing?
Are we smarter than everyone else? Do we mistrust science?
I've been looking for a study that shows that video surveillance has an impact on crime and I can't find one. Maybe you have one?
Is it a good idea because it seems like a good idea? Do we not care about it's cost-benefit? Why are we buying equipment when, according to the Department of Justice, what we need is more community policing?
Are we smarter than everyone else? Do we mistrust science?
I've been looking for a study that shows that video surveillance has an impact on crime and I can't find one. Maybe you have one?
06/23/09 @ 12:06
Comment from: Roger [Visitor]
First off i didnt say it was a good idea, i said if they do it do it right with the 14 or so cameras.
as for studies, "Both the 2002 Welsh & Farrington study and the 2005 Gill & Spriggs study found that video surveillance appears to push crime 200-500 feet away from the cameras while the overall crime rate is unaffected. This is the unintended side effect, "pushing" crime away from the cameras and into the adjacent neighborhoods."
there's your studies. now assuming that they have a pushing effect, they will be pushing crime out of the main shopping district to the bordering neighborhoods, however, since the bordering neighborhoods do not provide nearly as many possibilities/potential targets, most potential thieves will target a different area entirely. If we end up pushing these statistica out of hamtrqamck and into detroit, then they have done their job which is to reduce crime in our area.
At what cost? whats a couple thousand dollars a year if it means less car thefts, less assaults, less robberies and less unsolved hit and runs? besides maybe the added surveylance will give the businesses an insurance discount too :)
I do not support paying $12,000 a camera but I do say if the idea works for others, why not use it here?
I dont like to use stereotypes or scare tactics, but maybe we need to make a reputation for ourselves like sterling heights, fraser, eastpoint and warren and make people say "careful in hamtramck man, those cops are vicious!"
as for studies, "Both the 2002 Welsh & Farrington study and the 2005 Gill & Spriggs study found that video surveillance appears to push crime 200-500 feet away from the cameras while the overall crime rate is unaffected. This is the unintended side effect, "pushing" crime away from the cameras and into the adjacent neighborhoods."
there's your studies. now assuming that they have a pushing effect, they will be pushing crime out of the main shopping district to the bordering neighborhoods, however, since the bordering neighborhoods do not provide nearly as many possibilities/potential targets, most potential thieves will target a different area entirely. If we end up pushing these statistica out of hamtrqamck and into detroit, then they have done their job which is to reduce crime in our area.
At what cost? whats a couple thousand dollars a year if it means less car thefts, less assaults, less robberies and less unsolved hit and runs? besides maybe the added surveylance will give the businesses an insurance discount too :)
I do not support paying $12,000 a camera but I do say if the idea works for others, why not use it here?
I dont like to use stereotypes or scare tactics, but maybe we need to make a reputation for ourselves like sterling heights, fraser, eastpoint and warren and make people say "careful in hamtramck man, those cops are vicious!"
06/23/09 @ 17:07
I think saying that it can be done right is implying that it's a good idea.
There are plenty of proven, studied, good ideas that will actually reduce crime. Why why not try those first?
All the studies show that video surveillance doesn't reduce crime.
Inserting a fictional narrative where criminals go elsewhere fails to convince me that this is worth doing.
Nothing indicates that it will mean "less car thefts, less assaults, less robberies and less unsolved hit and runs". Where is the evidence that "it works for others?" You wrote that but are there any statistics or studies to back it up?
There are plenty of proven, studied, good ideas that will actually reduce crime. Why why not try those first?
All the studies show that video surveillance doesn't reduce crime.
Inserting a fictional narrative where criminals go elsewhere fails to convince me that this is worth doing.
Nothing indicates that it will mean "less car thefts, less assaults, less robberies and less unsolved hit and runs". Where is the evidence that "it works for others?" You wrote that but are there any statistics or studies to back it up?
06/23/09 @ 17:17
Comment from: Roger [Visitor]
I wont begin to pretend to be an expert on crime prevention (wish i was i could make a mint in wayne county alone!), but to clarify, "If" the camera idea has a supporting argument, i.e. a study or statistical compilation, then my point is 4 cameras wont do much. More importantly, my other point is that if we are to buy such a system, that $48000 is way overpriced. that is what happens to many municipalities when asking for bids, remember the street cleanup contracts? how most were double what the lowest bid was? because they all figured that everyone knows to pump up bills for cities "cause they have the money anyway" but someone didnt get the memo and gave a more resonable bid.
I'd like to see the breakdown on this bill and what we get. maybe put it up for a vote by the people not the council.
I'd like to see the breakdown on this bill and what we get. maybe put it up for a vote by the people not the council.
06/23/09 @ 17:35
$48k is a ton of money, agreed. That's over $12k per camera!
I'm not an expert either, which is why I can only base arguments on expert studies.
I'm not an expert either, which is why I can only base arguments on expert studies.
06/23/09 @ 17:46
Comment from: Roger [Visitor]
yeah, i still have mixed feelings but you two did a good job stating your case. I still do not like that cost.
06/24/09 @ 10:30
The installation cost is minuscule compared to the potential civil rights lawsuits. It should be very clear to everyone that the city will be named.
06/24/09 @ 10:43
Comment from: Roger [Visitor]
civil rights lawsuits? from cameras? as in invasion of privacy? maybe but i doubt it, but if it does, woohoo more money spent on lawyers and lawsuits, by the way, do we pay mr allen by the sentence or the minute cause i wondered how much we had to pay him to answer those questions during the meeting, lol.
I dont think its too late to get the council to change their mind, we just need a real good case study or argument against it submitted before the next meeting.
I dont think its too late to get the council to change their mind, we just need a real good case study or argument against it submitted before the next meeting.
06/24/09 @ 10:52
Right now, the city is being sued by a Black police officer who was called a racist name by the person who would have the ability to operate the camera on one shift, and the city is also being sued by several police officers because the same potential camera operator failed to preserve video evidence in another case.
How long do you think it will take for someone to file a racial profiling lawsuit against the city?
How long do you think it will take for someone to file a racial profiling lawsuit against the city?
06/24/09 @ 11:35
You know, I don't trust people to refrain from abusing the video cameras. I mean two FBI agents were caught using surveillance cameras to spy on young women in a mall:
http://wvgazette.com/News/200904200487
Then there's this one:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article743391.ece
http://wvgazette.com/News/200904200487
Then there's this one:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article743391.ece
06/24/09 @ 11:47
Whoops!:
"On Sept. 27, 2000 officials identified 26,500 Maryland motorists using I-95, and then sent those people letters asking where they were going that day, why and with whom as part of a mass transit survey."
There are too many of these to post: http://youarebeingwatched.us/true/3/
"On Sept. 27, 2000 officials identified 26,500 Maryland motorists using I-95, and then sent those people letters asking where they were going that day, why and with whom as part of a mass transit survey."
There are too many of these to post: http://youarebeingwatched.us/true/3/
06/24/09 @ 11:50
Comment from: Roger [Visitor]
Welcome to the digital age :)
I might recommend that if its big brother syndrome fueling your rejection of cameras you may wish to note that;
a: most camera systems can be negated by a quick jog to Radio shack
b: cameras tend not to be bulletproof or paintball proof so if a criminal really wants, they can negate the issue.
c: they already stated that the cameras are not going to be manned 24 hours a day so the chance of somebody abusing the priviledge is minor especially since at any time a supervisor can playback at fast speed the last 2 weeks worth and see if somebody has been playing with the zoom function a bit too much.
I dont like the idea that everything i do is traceable but i keep my nose clean and accept it as par for the course.
I might recommend that if its big brother syndrome fueling your rejection of cameras you may wish to note that;
a: most camera systems can be negated by a quick jog to Radio shack
b: cameras tend not to be bulletproof or paintball proof so if a criminal really wants, they can negate the issue.
c: they already stated that the cameras are not going to be manned 24 hours a day so the chance of somebody abusing the priviledge is minor especially since at any time a supervisor can playback at fast speed the last 2 weeks worth and see if somebody has been playing with the zoom function a bit too much.
I dont like the idea that everything i do is traceable but i keep my nose clean and accept it as par for the course.
06/24/09 @ 12:31
I don't know what "big brother syndrome" is but I'm familiar with US citizens' rights to privacy, anonymity, freedom of movement, and protections against warrantless surveillance and searches.
A sad state of affairs. I just wonder which government agencies will have access to the video streams.
It seems like a short step to employing facial recognition to check for immigration violations like the UK.
I'm not so willing to give up my freedoms for a false sense of security. I guess that's why I'm a member of the ACLU.
A sad state of affairs. I just wonder which government agencies will have access to the video streams.
It seems like a short step to employing facial recognition to check for immigration violations like the UK.
I'm not so willing to give up my freedoms for a false sense of security. I guess that's why I'm a member of the ACLU.
06/24/09 @ 12:53
Having been the subject of sexually harassing posts on the website from the police station, I will no longer feel comfortable shopping on Joseph Campau. Not that it really matters because most of the storefronts are empty and they're about to waste 3 years of their advertising budget on this.
06/24/09 @ 13:02
Oh, the DDA also bought four trees. I understand an argument was made not to buy the trees so they'd have more money for the video surveillance system.
06/24/09 @ 13:08
Comment from: Roger [Visitor]
admittedly i feel better knowing the DDA isnt spending tax dollars, rather its spending money that they are able to get from the local businesses. Although as it was pointed out at the meeting, even though the city does not fund them the city can still be liable for any debts incurred.
OH, duh, i get it now! the whole surveillance thing is there to make the current owners feel safe so they dont leave and to promote the area as safe and under surveillance for future businesses! takes a while to get used to thinking like a politician. could be useful afterall.
OH, duh, i get it now! the whole surveillance thing is there to make the current owners feel safe so they dont leave and to promote the area as safe and under surveillance for future businesses! takes a while to get used to thinking like a politician. could be useful afterall.
06/24/09 @ 13:34
It's the perception of safety instead of actual safety.
It's too bad improving actual safety is a better long-term investment.
If working in PR taught me anything, changing perception is easier than changing reality. We had a whole week-long symposium on the "Perception of Quality" which never mentioned actual quality.
It's too bad improving actual safety is a better long-term investment.
If working in PR taught me anything, changing perception is easier than changing reality. We had a whole week-long symposium on the "Perception of Quality" which never mentioned actual quality.
06/24/09 @ 14:37
The DDA is funded by the general fund through a TIFA district. They are supposed to be using it to promote the district. All but one of the members apparently voted to mount surveillance cameras on their own buildings instead. They should have to pay the cost of the cameras to protect their buildings out of their own pockets.
If you run into Kathy Kristy, be sure to ask her about the time she watched someone spray paint several storefronts on Joseph Campau while she was on the phone with the police, and they didn't have anyone to send.
If you run into Kathy Kristy, be sure to ask her about the time she watched someone spray paint several storefronts on Joseph Campau while she was on the phone with the police, and they didn't have anyone to send.
06/24/09 @ 20:19
Comment from: rh [Visitor]
I haven't looked it up recently, but I think the privacy issues were settled legally a while ago (I want to say in chicago) based on the argument that you don't have any privacy when you're in public. I really feel that this is a stupid waste of money and will affect nothing. A police presence is simply much more valuable and effective than a few cameras. Did they say what kind of crimes this is supposed to prevent? Don't car thieves mostly avoid JC already? Are they going to use the cameras to convince the businesses along JC to shovel their drives?
If you've worked in PR, then do you think the cameras will make a big talking point for potential businesses along JC? Or is it too transparent and feeble of a gesture to be meaningful to anyone?
If you've worked in PR, then do you think the cameras will make a big talking point for potential businesses along JC? Or is it too transparent and feeble of a gesture to be meaningful to anyone?
06/24/09 @ 21:29
Comment from: researcher [Visitor]
Cameras can help to *solve* crimes too. There's some value in that, I think. How many police (and for how long) could you hire for 49K?
06/26/09 @ 09:18
They can perhaps, but how often do they solve crimes? I've been looking for some kind of study and haven't yet found one. I know many criminals wear bandanas over there faces while committing crimes.
Personally, I'd rather have my tax dollars go toward preventing crime than recording it.
I think $48k would go a long way to establishing foot patrols via the police reserves.
Sort of a moot point now, the DDA blew their entire budget on the surveillance system.
Personally, I'd rather have my tax dollars go toward preventing crime than recording it.
I think $48k would go a long way to establishing foot patrols via the police reserves.
Sort of a moot point now, the DDA blew their entire budget on the surveillance system.
06/26/09 @ 09:25
Comment from: Roger [Visitor]
CSI: Hamtramck
Starring Dr. Dre, Eminem, Ben Stiller and Dr Algazali as "The chief"
Starring Dr. Dre, Eminem, Ben Stiller and Dr Algazali as "The chief"
06/26/09 @ 10:03
Comment from: researcher [Visitor]
I'm pretty certain that the "shotgun robber" was caught with the help of security tape. Not only was that guy terrorizing us, he *lived* on Belmont. I, for one, am glad that security tape help weed him out.
They'd burn though $49K in one year if they had to pay for a cop or for "foot patrol" overtime.
They'd burn though $49K in one year if they had to pay for a cop or for "foot patrol" overtime.
06/26/09 @ 10:31
It was a private security camera which caught the "shotgun robber".
This example is anecdotal and ignores the fact that our money ought to be spent on reducing crime not just recording it and picking up the pieces after the fact.
I think foot and bicycle patrols might have prevented the "shotgun robber" from claiming Hamtramck victims in the first place.
Our efforts should be proactive before reactive. We've skipped right over being proactive.
I'm a little shocked that there are citizens arguing against foot and bicycle patrols. Especially when they're proven to reduce crime instead letting it happen and simply recording it.
This example is anecdotal and ignores the fact that our money ought to be spent on reducing crime not just recording it and picking up the pieces after the fact.
I think foot and bicycle patrols might have prevented the "shotgun robber" from claiming Hamtramck victims in the first place.
Our efforts should be proactive before reactive. We've skipped right over being proactive.
I'm a little shocked that there are citizens arguing against foot and bicycle patrols. Especially when they're proven to reduce crime instead letting it happen and simply recording it.
06/26/09 @ 10:38
City Council's reaction seemed to indicate that we need video surveillance in addition to methods that are proven to reduce crime. (Which will be discussed at a later date?)
As if there's unlimited resources to provide for the safety of Hamtramckans.
Opportunity cost is a concept this Council doesn't seem to comprehend.
As if there's unlimited resources to provide for the safety of Hamtramckans.
Opportunity cost is a concept this Council doesn't seem to comprehend.
06/26/09 @ 10:48
Comment from: Roger [Visitor]
Warning: lots of ammunition about to be posted!
Playing devils advocate, even as you said before, the cameras may not have a primary negative impact on crime overall, but they will certainly create the image that the location is safer and this will in turn help increase and/or retain business on JC as well as increase foot traffic and business traffic thus creating more busines and a better environment. Crazy as it sounds sometimes pretending the problem isnt there can prevent the problem. Now I know you are envisioning a cuckoo popping out of my head but consider the economy:
the biggest driving force on the stock market is emotion. this is a proven fact. although every news agency reviewed the numbers and losses accurately, very often I noticed them trying to put a positive spin on things such as saying "experts feel that the market is on a slow upward swing" this, although not true, creates the impression it is true and the people who would have otherwise sold more and more expecting losses held off, thus slowing the drop and becoming a self realizing prophecy.
also before i forget, i believe the term I coined was Hamtramizens :)
we could have a dozen patrolman up and down JC at any given time and I expect even then not all crime would be eliminated.
OOh how about this idea: Hire police academy recruits as interns, either no pay plus benefits, or minimum wage just to walk the streets at night? maybe 6 or so, 2 on bikes, 4 walking a short beat. or would that be a Union issue? heck maybe we can offer an incentive to get some officers to volunteer 3 hours a week to walk an area? i know theyre overworked, but maybe a few may be willing.
just a thought
Playing devils advocate, even as you said before, the cameras may not have a primary negative impact on crime overall, but they will certainly create the image that the location is safer and this will in turn help increase and/or retain business on JC as well as increase foot traffic and business traffic thus creating more busines and a better environment. Crazy as it sounds sometimes pretending the problem isnt there can prevent the problem. Now I know you are envisioning a cuckoo popping out of my head but consider the economy:
the biggest driving force on the stock market is emotion. this is a proven fact. although every news agency reviewed the numbers and losses accurately, very often I noticed them trying to put a positive spin on things such as saying "experts feel that the market is on a slow upward swing" this, although not true, creates the impression it is true and the people who would have otherwise sold more and more expecting losses held off, thus slowing the drop and becoming a self realizing prophecy.
also before i forget, i believe the term I coined was Hamtramizens :)
we could have a dozen patrolman up and down JC at any given time and I expect even then not all crime would be eliminated.
OOh how about this idea: Hire police academy recruits as interns, either no pay plus benefits, or minimum wage just to walk the streets at night? maybe 6 or so, 2 on bikes, 4 walking a short beat. or would that be a Union issue? heck maybe we can offer an incentive to get some officers to volunteer 3 hours a week to walk an area? i know theyre overworked, but maybe a few may be willing.
just a thought
06/26/09 @ 13:26
I never said surveillance cameras "will certainly create the image that the location is safer and this will in turn help increase and/or retain business on JC".
If I said anything, it was that cameras might change people's perceptions but that doesn't help. If anything it lulls them into a false sense of security which is downright dangerous.
To the contrary, I think video surveillance shows that the district is so crime-filled and the policing so ineffectual that we've given up on reducing crime. Instead we're just keeping track of the victims.
Problems aren't solved by pretending they don't exist. That's just insanity.
DOJ studies show that there is a brief downturn in crime when a visible patrol passes by. So I think you're wrong about patrols on JC. I think crime would actually go down if it were patrolled on foot, in conjunction with community policing.
I think the FOP and ranking officers union might have something to say about unpaid replacements.
Of course this is all a moot point since the contract was approved.
If I said anything, it was that cameras might change people's perceptions but that doesn't help. If anything it lulls them into a false sense of security which is downright dangerous.
To the contrary, I think video surveillance shows that the district is so crime-filled and the policing so ineffectual that we've given up on reducing crime. Instead we're just keeping track of the victims.
Problems aren't solved by pretending they don't exist. That's just insanity.
DOJ studies show that there is a brief downturn in crime when a visible patrol passes by. So I think you're wrong about patrols on JC. I think crime would actually go down if it were patrolled on foot, in conjunction with community policing.
I think the FOP and ranking officers union might have something to say about unpaid replacements.
Of course this is all a moot point since the contract was approved.
06/26/09 @ 15:10
Comment from: researcher [Visitor]
But, again, you are ignoring the fact that it will cost 50K (plus benefits and pension...another, what? 15k?)to secure ONE cop for ONE year. Reserves cost a lot of money and volunteers don't show up. Also, what difference does it make that the shotgun robber was caught on a *private* security tape? He was caught...and...by surveillance camera.
06/27/09 @ 14:03
researcher, it sounds like you're arguing that the video surveillance system, which won't be monitored, is some kind of replacement for officers.
I really disagree with that argument. A police patrol is proactive while the cameras are reactive. The crime rate is remains the same with cameras.
How much does it cost for us to use police reserves on the weekends? What exactly is a "lot of money"?
The point of it being private security tape is that it's maintained by business owners not on the dime of the taxpayers who don't even live in the district.
I'm really trying to understand the argument of not wanting to reduce crime but only record it to catch criminals. The problem is that you still have trauma and you still have victims.
What I'm trying to say is that unlike you, I'm not happy with the crime rate in Hamtramck and I'd like to do something about it. I'm okay with the conviction rate, because our detectives do a pretty good job.
I really disagree with that argument. A police patrol is proactive while the cameras are reactive. The crime rate is remains the same with cameras.
How much does it cost for us to use police reserves on the weekends? What exactly is a "lot of money"?
The point of it being private security tape is that it's maintained by business owners not on the dime of the taxpayers who don't even live in the district.
I'm really trying to understand the argument of not wanting to reduce crime but only record it to catch criminals. The problem is that you still have trauma and you still have victims.
What I'm trying to say is that unlike you, I'm not happy with the crime rate in Hamtramck and I'd like to do something about it. I'm okay with the conviction rate, because our detectives do a pretty good job.
06/27/09 @ 14:39
Comment from: researcher [Visitor]
It will be monitored. The DDA guy says so on the City Council tape. Why are you saying it is never going to be monitored? That's false. I never said I was happy with the crime rate. Any crime is too much crime as far as I'm concerned. So, that's also false. And frankly, putting words in people's mouths is like, High School Debate Team tactics. You don't have to do that to make your point.
I simply said, that, for the money they had to spend on public safety, surveillance cameras will be a useful tool that we will be able to be used for years to come. I was glad when they were used to rid this town of the Shotgun Robber and am glad that they know have surveillance tapes at their disposal to help continue to fight crime.
Of course preventing crime is better than solving crimes after the fact, but if we can't have cops on every street corner every second of the day and night, this is the next best thing.
I'm just trying to be logical.
Thanks for the spirited debate, tho.
I simply said, that, for the money they had to spend on public safety, surveillance cameras will be a useful tool that we will be able to be used for years to come. I was glad when they were used to rid this town of the Shotgun Robber and am glad that they know have surveillance tapes at their disposal to help continue to fight crime.
Of course preventing crime is better than solving crimes after the fact, but if we can't have cops on every street corner every second of the day and night, this is the next best thing.
I'm just trying to be logical.
Thanks for the spirited debate, tho.
06/27/09 @ 18:55
I believe you're mistaken. The four cameras will not be monitored. HPD doesn't have the staffing for it.
The guys at the desk are already busy enough. Just because the "guy from the DDA" said it don't make so.
Crime prevention isn't having "police on every street corner", that's a straw man.
We have finite resources, and my argument is that we ought to spend our resources on prevention instead.
I'm unconvinced video surveillance is a good idea.
The guys at the desk are already busy enough. Just because the "guy from the DDA" said it don't make so.
Crime prevention isn't having "police on every street corner", that's a straw man.
We have finite resources, and my argument is that we ought to spend our resources on prevention instead.
I'm unconvinced video surveillance is a good idea.
06/27/09 @ 23:27
There are plenty of privatly owned cameras out there already, and the police should be making an effort to advise people about making themselves and their property safer. People in the community should be responsible for detecting and reporting crime. This action only adds to the problems of people not protecting themselves and not calling the police, two of the main causes of our high crime rate.
Neither the DDA nor the council understand the system they're buying, and there should have been time for people to talk about it before ramming this through.
Current belief in civil liberties circles is that the video from the cameras has to be made available to anyone who asks by FOIA, which will give access to any federal agency or ex-husband who wants to monitor innocent people shopping.
If you ask a police officer, they will tell you that these cameras will not be monitored. The officers at the front desk are responsible for monitoring the cameras in City Hall and the park in front, on top of checking on prisoners every 15 minutes as required by law, on top of assisting visitors in the lobby, on top of taking over 100,000 phone calls per year. They do not enough time to perform the work that they are doing already. If the DDA manager had ever attended a single meeting about community policing, he would know that!
Neither the DDA nor the council understand the system they're buying, and there should have been time for people to talk about it before ramming this through.
Current belief in civil liberties circles is that the video from the cameras has to be made available to anyone who asks by FOIA, which will give access to any federal agency or ex-husband who wants to monitor innocent people shopping.
If you ask a police officer, they will tell you that these cameras will not be monitored. The officers at the front desk are responsible for monitoring the cameras in City Hall and the park in front, on top of checking on prisoners every 15 minutes as required by law, on top of assisting visitors in the lobby, on top of taking over 100,000 phone calls per year. They do not enough time to perform the work that they are doing already. If the DDA manager had ever attended a single meeting about community policing, he would know that!
06/28/09 @ 11:02
Comment from: researcher [Visitor]
regarding "crime prevention"...what exactly do you have in mind, what will it cost and does the city have the resources?
"Crime Prevention" is a pretty broad stroke.
Cops cost money. Alot of money.
Do you have proof that the DDA never met with the police? I'd be curious to see that.
"Crime Prevention" is a pretty broad stroke.
Cops cost money. Alot of money.
Do you have proof that the DDA never met with the police? I'd be curious to see that.
06/28/09 @ 11:21
Police do cost lots of money, which is precisely why it should be spent toward lowering the crime rate.
I don't know how much foot and bicycle patrols would cost, they're merely examples of things that lower the crime rate. The DDA should follow the DOJ's best practices for crime reduction instead of listening to sales pitches.
No proof yet that the DDA met with Weed & Seed. If there were meetings there was no mention of them.
I don't know how much foot and bicycle patrols would cost, they're merely examples of things that lower the crime rate. The DDA should follow the DOJ's best practices for crime reduction instead of listening to sales pitches.
No proof yet that the DDA met with Weed & Seed. If there were meetings there was no mention of them.
06/28/09 @ 13:55
Comment from: Taras P. Nykoriak [Visitor] · http://www.nykoriak.org
I am not against the video surveillance idea on Jos. Campau, but the Price tag of close to $50,000.00 has to go.
06/28/09 @ 17:28
Comment from: Taras P. Nykoriak [Visitor] · http://nykoriak.org
True, crime on Jos. Campau is deterred by several different factors, but the citizens need to feel secure when shopping on Campau.
The deterred policing is something that is seldom used in Hamtramck.
Parking one of the 4-5 unused scout cars at Glory Supermarket, Senior Center, Campau & Belmont, and By Carpenter & Campau is a deterrant.
Someone sees a police car, and will think twice about knocking someone for a $50.00 cell phone.
The deterred policing is something that is seldom used in Hamtramck.
Parking one of the 4-5 unused scout cars at Glory Supermarket, Senior Center, Campau & Belmont, and By Carpenter & Campau is a deterrant.
Someone sees a police car, and will think twice about knocking someone for a $50.00 cell phone.
06/28/09 @ 17:34
Comment from: researcher [Visitor]
So with no data on true costs and/or how realistic hiring bike patrols or foot cops, you are saying that's a better idea than securing surveillance cameras? Seems easy to be supportive of general ideas, when the specifics need to be left up to everyone else.
There's no proof that the DDA met with Weed & Seed...is there proof that they *didn't*? Is there proof that they didn't consult with law enforcement? From his presentation, it seemed like the DDA manager had spoken to the Hamtramck police and that they were supportive of the idea. You seem to keep insinuating that this was a totally unilateral move. I'd be curious what evidence there is to support your assessment that the DDA was "sold" something, as opposed to these cameras being something that several business owners really want and need.
There's no proof that the DDA met with Weed & Seed...is there proof that they *didn't*? Is there proof that they didn't consult with law enforcement? From his presentation, it seemed like the DDA manager had spoken to the Hamtramck police and that they were supportive of the idea. You seem to keep insinuating that this was a totally unilateral move. I'd be curious what evidence there is to support your assessment that the DDA was "sold" something, as opposed to these cameras being something that several business owners really want and need.
06/28/09 @ 19:02
No, I'm saying that DOJ best practices for crime reduction are better than practices which don't reduce crime. Foot and bicycle patrols are merely examples of a best practice. I'd be happy with any DOJ best practice for reducing crime.
If the public were consulted in these decisions we could get into specifics, instead this was rammed through.
A member of the police department did meet with the DDA. The same Ron Mathias who eliminated the log book when we asked to see it. The same guy who has fought or eliminated every attempt at community policing presented to him. Judging by his actions, he's totally against community policing or sharing information with citizens.
I absolutely believe some business owners want the video surveillance system, like maybe the ones on the DDA? Why spend their money when they can waste ours?
It was a unilateral decision based on something other than studies or DOJ best practices.
If the public were consulted in these decisions we could get into specifics, instead this was rammed through.
A member of the police department did meet with the DDA. The same Ron Mathias who eliminated the log book when we asked to see it. The same guy who has fought or eliminated every attempt at community policing presented to him. Judging by his actions, he's totally against community policing or sharing information with citizens.
I absolutely believe some business owners want the video surveillance system, like maybe the ones on the DDA? Why spend their money when they can waste ours?
It was a unilateral decision based on something other than studies or DOJ best practices.
06/28/09 @ 19:43
Comment from: Tim [Member]
I cannot believe that anyone would be arguing for 4 surveillance cameras that will cost $48,550! Are effing kidding me? Did you read the ACLU report that Steven provided at the beginning of this thread? Cameras simply displace crime to other areas. You would have to blanket the whole city with cameras to create any possible positive effect--and that ain't happening (especially not @ the current purchase rate). Seriousely, what mugger wouldn't notice a camera and not simply move his business just out of that camera's sight?
We had bicycle patrols back in the late '90's (I believe) and it made a difference. Policing isn't just about locking up bad guys. It is about preventing bad guys from wanting to commit crimes in the first place. Simply put, police presence prevents crime and creates a safer environment to live/shop in.
Thinking that four overpriced cameras will make any impact on downtown crime is like thinking you can put out a house fire with glasses of water. (Very expensive glasses of water.)
We had bicycle patrols back in the late '90's (I believe) and it made a difference. Policing isn't just about locking up bad guys. It is about preventing bad guys from wanting to commit crimes in the first place. Simply put, police presence prevents crime and creates a safer environment to live/shop in.
Thinking that four overpriced cameras will make any impact on downtown crime is like thinking you can put out a house fire with glasses of water. (Very expensive glasses of water.)
06/28/09 @ 21:04
Comment from: researcher [Visitor]
So, again, can the proponents of bicycle police please comment on what it would actually cost? Can we be realistic here? Also, how many months patrol would 49K cover?
Also, please remember...they only asked for 19K from the City and are financing /paying for the rest themselves. So, really, we're talking about 19K of City money being spent. How far would 19K go on an actual officer? 6 months? Maybe?
19K spent on monitoring the business district (for years and years to come, no less) seems reasonable...especially in the larger context of the whole budget.
Also, please remember...they only asked for 19K from the City and are financing /paying for the rest themselves. So, really, we're talking about 19K of City money being spent. How far would 19K go on an actual officer? 6 months? Maybe?
19K spent on monitoring the business district (for years and years to come, no less) seems reasonable...especially in the larger context of the whole budget.
06/29/09 @ 10:07
This isn't a discussion about foot and bicycle patrols, it's about wasting money on things that aren't DOJ best practices for crime reduction.
If you're going to argue about actually trying to reduce crime, I don't know what to tell you. That money that could have been spent on things that are shown to work.
If the DDA had bothered to come to Weed and Seed Policing meetings, they might have come up with a workable plan to reduce crime instead of video taping it.
I remain unconvinced that video surveillance is advisable, necessary, and in the public interest.
If you're going to argue about actually trying to reduce crime, I don't know what to tell you. That money that could have been spent on things that are shown to work.
If the DDA had bothered to come to Weed and Seed Policing meetings, they might have come up with a workable plan to reduce crime instead of video taping it.
I remain unconvinced that video surveillance is advisable, necessary, and in the public interest.
06/29/09 @ 10:38
We've given up on keeping the peace, now we're just keeping score.
06/29/09 @ 10:57
Comment from: Mel [Member]
Researcher seems to be arguing that the $49k cost of the cameras is a one time cost with a lifetime of benefits.
But what about the cost of maintaining those cameras? How much will monitoring cost? How about supplies like electricity and blank tapes? What is the average lifespan of such a camera?
(I have to say, I can't get my personal video cameras to last more than about five years, and they are used much more rarely and never outside in rain or bad weather.)
But what about the cost of maintaining those cameras? How much will monitoring cost? How about supplies like electricity and blank tapes? What is the average lifespan of such a camera?
(I have to say, I can't get my personal video cameras to last more than about five years, and they are used much more rarely and never outside in rain or bad weather.)
06/29/09 @ 12:34
Comment from: Tim [Member]
So, you think $19K of our tax dollar is a wise investment on an ineffectual product?
06/29/09 @ 13:25
The DDA is funded by a Tax Increment Finance district. That means that the DDA's money also indirectly comes from the general fund of the city.
06/29/09 @ 14:04
Comment from: Roger [Visitor]
Cameras are like firearms. they are a deterrent and a tool to be used by the officers. cameras alone wont stop crime, someone has to to review them, guns dont stop crime, someone has to bear them and, when necessary, use them.
the cameras will help but its the officers who will be doing the work necessary to stop crime.
the cameras will help but its the officers who will be doing the work necessary to stop crime.
06/29/09 @ 17:27
Deter means, "try to prevent". Video surveillance and guns do not prevent anything.
According to all the studies I've found, cameras aren't a deterrent. To be a deterrent they'd have to deter crime, they only move it approx. 200 feet, out of sight of the cameras.
Firearms aren't deterrents either, they're for the protection of the police and the public from criminals who require deadly force to apprehend.
Cameras can only keep score. Let's stop making stuff up.
According to all the studies I've found, cameras aren't a deterrent. To be a deterrent they'd have to deter crime, they only move it approx. 200 feet, out of sight of the cameras.
Firearms aren't deterrents either, they're for the protection of the police and the public from criminals who require deadly force to apprehend.
Cameras can only keep score. Let's stop making stuff up.
06/29/09 @ 17:36
Comment from: researcher [Visitor]
"Cameras can only keep score."
Two words: shotgun robber.
Two words: shotgun robber.
06/29/09 @ 18:31
I've seen no evidence that video surveillance played any part in apprehending the "shotgun robber". Maybe there was an article you can cite.
They may have caught the guy sooner if the HPD had alerted the public before he robbed around six people.
Anecdotal successes aren't evidence. Just because video may have contributed to an arrest doesn't mean it's not a waste of money.
I remain unconvinced this is a good idea.
They may have caught the guy sooner if the HPD had alerted the public before he robbed around six people.
Anecdotal successes aren't evidence. Just because video may have contributed to an arrest doesn't mean it's not a waste of money.
I remain unconvinced this is a good idea.
06/29/09 @ 19:08
Comment from: researcher [Visitor]
No one is trying to convince you. It's not about you.
06/29/09 @ 19:14
researcher,
You've made no valid arguments for spending $48,500 on video surveillance.
There's nothing to back up your claim that video surveillance had anything to do with the shotgun robber's capture.
So it's back to trolling?
You've made no valid arguments for spending $48,500 on video surveillance.
There's nothing to back up your claim that video surveillance had anything to do with the shotgun robber's capture.
So it's back to trolling?
06/29/09 @ 20:21
Comment from: Roger [Visitor]
hmm i have to agree with steven Researcher, with that nickname i was expecting alot of research study citing to prove or disprove, but you have unfortunately used the ubiquitous "they" as your source (see my explaination as to who "they" is in my previous crediblity post) google has tons of resources, if u are gonna try to convince steven (and others who matter) then cite a couple web pages, we love hotlinks :)
06/29/09 @ 21:38
Comment from: researcher [Visitor]
Thanks for you opinion.
However, a simple phone call to the police station got me the info I needed. And, knowing that there will be digitally recorded evidence for law enforcement to use in future cases only augments my support of these cameras.
Again, you have in no way proved how viable it is -- if at all -- to add more cops to the beat. Where's your evidence that is an affordable and realistic option?
The alternatives you are suggesting include "That money that could have been spent on things that are shown to work." Such as?
Not everyone's a malcontent. I never cited "they" as a source.
Putting words in peoples mouths and misrepresentation of facts is flagrant on this site. It's happened several times on this thread alone.
Here's to selectivity!
However, a simple phone call to the police station got me the info I needed. And, knowing that there will be digitally recorded evidence for law enforcement to use in future cases only augments my support of these cameras.
Again, you have in no way proved how viable it is -- if at all -- to add more cops to the beat. Where's your evidence that is an affordable and realistic option?
The alternatives you are suggesting include "That money that could have been spent on things that are shown to work." Such as?
Not everyone's a malcontent. I never cited "they" as a source.
Putting words in peoples mouths and misrepresentation of facts is flagrant on this site. It's happened several times on this thread alone.
Here's to selectivity!
06/30/09 @ 09:34
Comment from: Roger [Visitor]
"Putting words in peoples mouths and misrepresentation of facts is flagrant on this site. "
We hope your efforts to be a logical and spirited debater will help abolish this reputation. For the moment, the Star is the current sounding board for concerned citizens as comments made in front of the council seen to go unrecognized.
Here's to representing the people!
We hope your efforts to be a logical and spirited debater will help abolish this reputation. For the moment, the Star is the current sounding board for concerned citizens as comments made in front of the council seen to go unrecognized.
Here's to representing the people!
06/30/09 @ 09:58
Comment from: rh [Visitor]
"Welcome to Hamtramck. You are now under surveillance."
Steven's argument is not that the city has the money for more cops, that's an entirely different argument. Cameras are simply not a deterrent to crime. That makes it a completely pretend solution to a very real problem. Will these cameras have big signs on them that say "You are being watched?" Once you've been assaulted, the fact that the person who attacked you might get caught is a pretty hollow comfort.
Remember the highly-publicized central park jogger that just happened to get attacked directly in front of NYC surveillance cams? I don't think that jogger will take much comfort in knowing that some of her assailants were on video.
I agree that the cameras are a big waste of money, and when added to some of the city's other big wastes of money, could be much better allocated to invest in community policing. Added to this, I suspect that the cameras don't have a particularly long lifespan, and I'm very curious to learn the actual annual cost of monitoring and maintaining the cameras. I'm also curious as to which businesses wanted it so badly, and who's contracted the camera business, and how they got the contract, if it has already been awarded.
Steven's argument is not that the city has the money for more cops, that's an entirely different argument. Cameras are simply not a deterrent to crime. That makes it a completely pretend solution to a very real problem. Will these cameras have big signs on them that say "You are being watched?" Once you've been assaulted, the fact that the person who attacked you might get caught is a pretty hollow comfort.
Remember the highly-publicized central park jogger that just happened to get attacked directly in front of NYC surveillance cams? I don't think that jogger will take much comfort in knowing that some of her assailants were on video.
I agree that the cameras are a big waste of money, and when added to some of the city's other big wastes of money, could be much better allocated to invest in community policing. Added to this, I suspect that the cameras don't have a particularly long lifespan, and I'm very curious to learn the actual annual cost of monitoring and maintaining the cameras. I'm also curious as to which businesses wanted it so badly, and who's contracted the camera business, and how they got the contract, if it has already been awarded.
06/30/09 @ 10:00
researcher, we're supposed to take your word that you called the police and they told you that video surveillance was key in catching the shotgun robber?
I'm sorry, I don't believe you. Anonymous comments are exactly that. They lack the veracity of people who will take responisibility for their statements.
The burden of proof is really on you to justify the video surveillance system. Of course, you were unable to do this.
Now you're taking an example of DOJ best practices and demanding evidence that it works. This doesn't further your argument, it just attempts to redirect the burden of proof.
You're also treating video surveillance and foot patrols as interchangeable, which they're not.
You're again circling around to argue against DOJ best practices.
C'mon researcher, you're not convincing anyone. Catchy one-liners aren't going to help.
I'm sorry, I don't believe you. Anonymous comments are exactly that. They lack the veracity of people who will take responisibility for their statements.
The burden of proof is really on you to justify the video surveillance system. Of course, you were unable to do this.
Now you're taking an example of DOJ best practices and demanding evidence that it works. This doesn't further your argument, it just attempts to redirect the burden of proof.
You're also treating video surveillance and foot patrols as interchangeable, which they're not.
You're again circling around to argue against DOJ best practices.
C'mon researcher, you're not convincing anyone. Catchy one-liners aren't going to help.
06/30/09 @ 10:30
Out of curiosity sparked by researcher's misdirection, I'm looking at studies on the effectiveness of bicycle patrols. I'll write a post about it because the info is pretty interesting.
06/30/09 @ 11:06
Comment from: Tim [Member]
I am looking forward to what information you find out about bicycle patrols, Steven.
A "misrepresentation of facts" is one of the things that I have never had to concern myself with on this site. It is the only place where I can get information about the city that hasn't been adulterated by those who are content with and/or benefit from the status quo.
A "misrepresentation of facts" is one of the things that I have never had to concern myself with on this site. It is the only place where I can get information about the city that hasn't been adulterated by those who are content with and/or benefit from the status quo.
06/30/09 @ 12:40
It's the staus quo is what got us where we are today.
The definition of "fact" and "opinion" sometimes get confused in the absence of reasoned arguments.
The definition of "fact" and "opinion" sometimes get confused in the absence of reasoned arguments.
06/30/09 @ 12:54
Comment from: researcher [Visitor]
My concern for the public is precisely why I'm disturbed with Steven's misrepresentation of the DDA's intentions and procedures. Please people, take it upon yourself to ask the police whether or not they support this initiative. Don't take my word for it, and, don't take this site's word for it either.
The danger in relying on sources who have the time (though I do believe it's praiseworthy to opt for activism instead of a career) to develop and work on conspiracy theories is that they often become exactly like the folks they are trying to undermine: unwilling to cooperate and riddled with tunnel vision. Pretty soon, the need to be "right" is eclipsed by the larger picture, which is a healthy community.
Everyone...everyone...with an iota of power or influence -- including the Hamtramck Star -- needs a dissenter and someone who isn't afraid to ask questions.
It's dangerous to let others do the leg work *for* you. But, hey...who has time, right?
I choose not to give my real name, not because I'm afraid, but, simply, because it's crazy in this day and age to put private info out on the internet.
It's one big tricky situation.
The danger in relying on sources who have the time (though I do believe it's praiseworthy to opt for activism instead of a career) to develop and work on conspiracy theories is that they often become exactly like the folks they are trying to undermine: unwilling to cooperate and riddled with tunnel vision. Pretty soon, the need to be "right" is eclipsed by the larger picture, which is a healthy community.
Everyone...everyone...with an iota of power or influence -- including the Hamtramck Star -- needs a dissenter and someone who isn't afraid to ask questions.
It's dangerous to let others do the leg work *for* you. But, hey...who has time, right?
I choose not to give my real name, not because I'm afraid, but, simply, because it's crazy in this day and age to put private info out on the internet.
It's one big tricky situation.
06/30/09 @ 14:50
Hey, whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night.
The DDA's "intentions and procedures" are a big secret because their meeting minutes aren't available to the public.
Which member of the police should we ask exactly? It seems like if any of them make a statement they're risking dismissal. Don't they need clearance from the top to make a statement to the public? Who did you talk to exactly?
Conspiracy theories? Do you mean like studies and crime data?
We know you choose not to use your name, this fact would detract from your argument, if you had one.
Attacking the person making the argument is known as an ad hominem attack, in this case "poisoning the well", it's a fallacy of reason and doesn't further your argument. It really just makes you look like you don't have an argument at all.
It is back to trolling.
The DDA's "intentions and procedures" are a big secret because their meeting minutes aren't available to the public.
Which member of the police should we ask exactly? It seems like if any of them make a statement they're risking dismissal. Don't they need clearance from the top to make a statement to the public? Who did you talk to exactly?
Conspiracy theories? Do you mean like studies and crime data?
We know you choose not to use your name, this fact would detract from your argument, if you had one.
Attacking the person making the argument is known as an ad hominem attack, in this case "poisoning the well", it's a fallacy of reason and doesn't further your argument. It really just makes you look like you don't have an argument at all.
It is back to trolling.
06/30/09 @ 15:09
Comment from: Kristen Farron [Visitor]
... Yet another douchey brainless idea brought to you by our "awesome" city council. Solidarity, bro!
I have 6 years experience working in a mobile network environment. I can tell you 3 things for certain:
1. People can see cameras. If they are being shady, they will conduct their business out of the line of sight when possible, which will be relatively easy if there are only 4 cameras.
2. Cameras don't mean shit if no one is monitoring or responding adequately to suspicious activity. Every time I call the police to check up on suspicious activity I am more or less told to go fuck myself. Unfortunately, this isn't star wars and these cameras don't have artillery. Also, knowing the brilliance of CC, the cameras will probably have resolution of a webcam circa 1995, proving only that there is an incident - not who did it.
3. 48,000 for 4 cameras huh? Wow. If I wasn't convinced that I should let my house get foreclosed upon or short sold before, I certainly am now.
For those who care about my ongoing neighborhood drama on (Mc)Dougall: 2 gun threats next door in the past 3 weeks. no arrests, no charges, no citations. I've escalated through housing commision and DPW for inspection with little to no response. FUCK THIS SHIT, I GIVE UP. I will be moving out of Hamtramck to Wayne State district (Midtown - by Motor City Brewing Works) around August 1, and basically walking away from my house. Losing my credit is a small price to pay for peace of mind, especially since I will be attending U of D Law in the Fall and will have absolutely no time to deal with this crap. Although I don't expect much more from the police in the vicinity of my future residence, I'll be moving into a highly secured loft, so hopefully I won't ever need to call them.
I wish everyone the best of luck... (Keep in touch, Hillary, you have been the only person to provide guidance when I needed it the most, and for that I will always be grateful.)
I have 6 years experience working in a mobile network environment. I can tell you 3 things for certain:
1. People can see cameras. If they are being shady, they will conduct their business out of the line of sight when possible, which will be relatively easy if there are only 4 cameras.
2. Cameras don't mean shit if no one is monitoring or responding adequately to suspicious activity. Every time I call the police to check up on suspicious activity I am more or less told to go fuck myself. Unfortunately, this isn't star wars and these cameras don't have artillery. Also, knowing the brilliance of CC, the cameras will probably have resolution of a webcam circa 1995, proving only that there is an incident - not who did it.
3. 48,000 for 4 cameras huh? Wow. If I wasn't convinced that I should let my house get foreclosed upon or short sold before, I certainly am now.
For those who care about my ongoing neighborhood drama on (Mc)Dougall: 2 gun threats next door in the past 3 weeks. no arrests, no charges, no citations. I've escalated through housing commision and DPW for inspection with little to no response. FUCK THIS SHIT, I GIVE UP. I will be moving out of Hamtramck to Wayne State district (Midtown - by Motor City Brewing Works) around August 1, and basically walking away from my house. Losing my credit is a small price to pay for peace of mind, especially since I will be attending U of D Law in the Fall and will have absolutely no time to deal with this crap. Although I don't expect much more from the police in the vicinity of my future residence, I'll be moving into a highly secured loft, so hopefully I won't ever need to call them.
I wish everyone the best of luck... (Keep in touch, Hillary, you have been the only person to provide guidance when I needed it the most, and for that I will always be grateful.)
06/30/09 @ 21:51
Comment from: nygizak [Member]
"CCTV had no effect on violent crimes (from five studies), but had a
significant desirable effect on vehicle crimes (from eight studies)."
"In the city centre and public housing setting, there was evidence that CCTV led to a negligible reduction in crime.[CCTV] had no effect on crime in the four North American evaluations."
Crime prevention effects of
closed circuit television:
a systematic review. Brandon C. Welsh and David P. Farrington. 2002.
---
"CCTV [Closed Circuit Television] can play a part, in conjunction with other measures, in reducing car crime, especially theft of cars. It is, however, no panacea."
"CCTV can, in certain circumstances,
make a useful contribution to crime control. But perhaps one of the most valuable lessons from the report is the illustration of the need to consider the precise reasons why CCTV might help to prevent crime in a particular case."
Understanding Car Parks, crime and CCTV: Evaluation lessons from safer cities. Nick Tilley. 1993.
---
how's that for research?
took me about 15 mins.
there's more out there. but i chose the best, most reliable and respected sources. (farrington is amazing. he's done wonders for criminal justice research.)
significant desirable effect on vehicle crimes (from eight studies)."
"In the city centre and public housing setting, there was evidence that CCTV led to a negligible reduction in crime.[CCTV] had no effect on crime in the four North American evaluations."
Crime prevention effects of
closed circuit television:
a systematic review. Brandon C. Welsh and David P. Farrington. 2002.
---
"CCTV [Closed Circuit Television] can play a part, in conjunction with other measures, in reducing car crime, especially theft of cars. It is, however, no panacea."
"CCTV can, in certain circumstances,
make a useful contribution to crime control. But perhaps one of the most valuable lessons from the report is the illustration of the need to consider the precise reasons why CCTV might help to prevent crime in a particular case."
Understanding Car Parks, crime and CCTV: Evaluation lessons from safer cities. Nick Tilley. 1993.
---
how's that for research?
took me about 15 mins.
there's more out there. but i chose the best, most reliable and respected sources. (farrington is amazing. he's done wonders for criminal justice research.)
07/02/09 @ 11:00
Comment from: nygizak [Member]
best definition of community policing that i've ever seen.
&view=article&id=58&Itemid=100005">http://www.communitypolicing.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58&Itemid=100005
it means changing the culture of the police department - how to police pro-actively.
&view=article&id=58&Itemid=100005">http://www.communitypolicing.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58&Itemid=100005
it means changing the culture of the police department - how to police pro-actively.
07/02/09 @ 11:05
Excellent research Nadine. I'll have to find it, but there was a study I read not that long ago that recommended inexpensive signs warning people to lock their cars and secure their valuables as an effective auto theft prevention measure. The other effective sign declared the number of car thieves arrested in the parking lot in the last month.
07/02/09 @ 11:15
Comment from: nygizak [Member]
http://crimeprevention.rutgers.edu/index.htm
Crime Prevention Service for Business
School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University
"We work with small businesses in Newark and the rest of northern New Jersey to find workable crime prevention measures that are practical and inexpensive, and geared toward individual businesses.
Our goal is to reduce crime using simple and low-cost or no-cost methods."
Crime Prevention Service for Business
School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University
"We work with small businesses in Newark and the rest of northern New Jersey to find workable crime prevention measures that are practical and inexpensive, and geared toward individual businesses.
Our goal is to reduce crime using simple and low-cost or no-cost methods."
07/02/09 @ 11:22
Comment from: Roger [Visitor]
Hey actual research!
amazingly enough a lot of crimes could be prevented by simply being aware of things like locking your car doors when you fill up or at home, or anytime you leave the car unattended. same for leaving personal items like cellphones, laptops and other valuables unattended. many a theft occurs simply because thieves exploit forgetfullness and carelessness.
By the way do we get road and building signs that say "area under video surveillance" or do we just hope they notice the cameras on their own?
amazingly enough a lot of crimes could be prevented by simply being aware of things like locking your car doors when you fill up or at home, or anytime you leave the car unattended. same for leaving personal items like cellphones, laptops and other valuables unattended. many a theft occurs simply because thieves exploit forgetfullness and carelessness.
By the way do we get road and building signs that say "area under video surveillance" or do we just hope they notice the cameras on their own?
07/02/09 @ 12:10
Kristen: I wish I could have done more to help. Obviously, I'd like to convince you to stay, but "I don't have time for this crap" is an understandable reason for leaving, right up there with "my wife doesn't feel safe here".
If there is a reason to stay, it is that Interim Police Chief Kalinowski should be permanently promoted soon, and I think he's the right person for the job. Prior to being a police officer in Hamtramck, he was a drill sergeant in the Marines. He has a community policing background, and as a patrol officer, he was known for pulling over to shoot baskets with the kids and attending community meetings in his spare time. Above all, he's not a racist. He's surrounding himself with smart, community oriented people, and given time, I think he can turn the department around.
If there is a reason to stay, it is that Interim Police Chief Kalinowski should be permanently promoted soon, and I think he's the right person for the job. Prior to being a police officer in Hamtramck, he was a drill sergeant in the Marines. He has a community policing background, and as a patrol officer, he was known for pulling over to shoot baskets with the kids and attending community meetings in his spare time. Above all, he's not a racist. He's surrounding himself with smart, community oriented people, and given time, I think he can turn the department around.
07/02/09 @ 12:31
Roger: You are exactly right. One of the main tactics the National Sheriffs Associate Neighborhood Watch literature prescribes for high crime areas is "target hardening". They suggest that the police department could offer security audits of homes and businesses to advise residents about crime prevention.
For example, I learned from attending community crime prevention meetings that the most common entry point for a burglar in Hamtramck is kicking in the back door. The strike-plate is often the weak point of the door because it is superficially screwed into a 1" piece of molding. If you replace the screws in the strike-plate with 3" deck screws, they penetrate into the surrounding 2x4, and the security of the door is vastly improved.
Based on this information, we had a steel door installed in the rear of our house with a reinforced strike-plate, and Steve and I bought a few boxes of 3" screws. We're planning to go door to door soon, upgrading the back doors of neighbors houses. One of our neighbors (who can fess up if he likes) has already upgraded the back doors of several houses in his vicinity.
The screws came in handy last Sunday, too. Through the messaging system on this very post, someone alerted me to an open building in our neighborhood on the Detroit side. I called a neighbor, and we went over there and temporarily secured it. I called the building owner on Monday, and they sent someone out to assess the damage by scrappers. Next, I plan to call the leasing company to thank them for being good neighbors, and to see what I can find out about their plans for the building and assess whether or not they plan to pay their taxes.
For example, I learned from attending community crime prevention meetings that the most common entry point for a burglar in Hamtramck is kicking in the back door. The strike-plate is often the weak point of the door because it is superficially screwed into a 1" piece of molding. If you replace the screws in the strike-plate with 3" deck screws, they penetrate into the surrounding 2x4, and the security of the door is vastly improved.
Based on this information, we had a steel door installed in the rear of our house with a reinforced strike-plate, and Steve and I bought a few boxes of 3" screws. We're planning to go door to door soon, upgrading the back doors of neighbors houses. One of our neighbors (who can fess up if he likes) has already upgraded the back doors of several houses in his vicinity.
The screws came in handy last Sunday, too. Through the messaging system on this very post, someone alerted me to an open building in our neighborhood on the Detroit side. I called a neighbor, and we went over there and temporarily secured it. I called the building owner on Monday, and they sent someone out to assess the damage by scrappers. Next, I plan to call the leasing company to thank them for being good neighbors, and to see what I can find out about their plans for the building and assess whether or not they plan to pay their taxes.
07/02/09 @ 13:18
Comment from: Roger [Visitor]
Those are good ideas, the door, the screws,etc.
When I first moved in i replaced some of the door hardware because it was "jiggly" and in process upgraded the hinges and door plate hardware using 4" brass screws from home depot. Theyre only about 30 cents each but they add up quick. Also, as i am sure you know but the readers may not is that even if you have a very secure door (habitat for humanity has some good deals if you time it right) it does nothing to keep out a determined crook, because windows, patio doors and screens can be potential entry points. I really would hate to see Hamtramck looking like Detroit with Steel bars on every window and door, its just kills curb appeal.
People should also keep their gates locked to their back yards both for your own security as well as protection from neighborhood kids possibly getting back there and hurting themselves on your property.
On a related note, I wonder how many people fake security systems on their home? I mean a random steel box on the side and a sign in the yard and who's gonna ask questions?
its like those blinking lights people buy for their cars to make it look like they're alarmed, heh.
When I first moved in i replaced some of the door hardware because it was "jiggly" and in process upgraded the hinges and door plate hardware using 4" brass screws from home depot. Theyre only about 30 cents each but they add up quick. Also, as i am sure you know but the readers may not is that even if you have a very secure door (habitat for humanity has some good deals if you time it right) it does nothing to keep out a determined crook, because windows, patio doors and screens can be potential entry points. I really would hate to see Hamtramck looking like Detroit with Steel bars on every window and door, its just kills curb appeal.
People should also keep their gates locked to their back yards both for your own security as well as protection from neighborhood kids possibly getting back there and hurting themselves on your property.
On a related note, I wonder how many people fake security systems on their home? I mean a random steel box on the side and a sign in the yard and who's gonna ask questions?
its like those blinking lights people buy for their cars to make it look like they're alarmed, heh.
07/02/09 @ 15:23
Comment from: Roger [Visitor]
oh just to clarify, the part about potential entry points, I failed to mention that if you close and lock your windows along with the door then its most effective. if you leave the window open they'll just go in that way.
07/02/09 @ 15:25
If you have a little time, Detective Fountain from the DPD came and spoke to us about burglaries and we made an audio recording of the presentation:
http://hamtramckcommunity.org/index.php/What_Burglars_Know
http://hamtramckcommunity.org/index.php/What_Burglars_Know
07/02/09 @ 17:05
Comment from: Tim [Member]
One of our neighbors (who can fess up if he likes) has already upgraded the back doors of several houses in his vicinity.
*Waves hi to everyone*
Roger: The 4" screws that you used I am sure are a vast improvement from what was there before. However, as someone who works with brass (cutting, tooling, filing, etc.), I would recommend replacing the brass ones with steel ones. The ones going into the strike plate are not very visible so, trying to make it match the metal doesn't seem to be as important as using the stronger metal. Brass is a soft metal. A #9 or #10 x 3" wood or deck screw seems to be a good choice overall. (Plus, they are a lot cheaper than brass!)
/my 2¢
*Waves hi to everyone*
Roger: The 4" screws that you used I am sure are a vast improvement from what was there before. However, as someone who works with brass (cutting, tooling, filing, etc.), I would recommend replacing the brass ones with steel ones. The ones going into the strike plate are not very visible so, trying to make it match the metal doesn't seem to be as important as using the stronger metal. Brass is a soft metal. A #9 or #10 x 3" wood or deck screw seems to be a good choice overall. (Plus, they are a lot cheaper than brass!)
/my 2¢
07/02/09 @ 17:57
Comment from: rh [Visitor]
Securing door hinges and strike plates with longer screws is, I believe, recommended practice for all doors, interior and exterior. Typical installation (for all the outfits I've worked for) is replacing one of the longer screws in each hinge (this helps to prevent sagging also) and both on the strike plate. The important thing is to make sure your screws get well into the structure around the door. Working remodeling houses, I have bashed and pried apart lots of pieces of lots houses, and longer screws make the difference between a little pry bar and a sledgehammer. I'm usually too lazy to get out the screw gun for demo work, and besides, what's more fun than a sledgehammer? Once you're tied securely into the framing of the house, you have to break a lot more than the little 3/4 pine door jamb to get thru a locked door.
I've seen a few broken-into garages around town, I think most people aren't aware of the latch on the inside of most garage doors which functions like a deadbolt, although not as sturdy. Keeping those locked if possible would probably prevent a fair few break-ins too.
I think being on friendly terms with your neighbors is just as important, as they will be more likely to investigate or observe strange behaviour on your property while you're out. I've had neighbors call me while a friend was standing on the front porch, peeking into the windows to see if I was home, and it made me feel much more secure, even if no harm was done.
Does the police presentation talk about house alarms? Do they respond to the automatic security systems that will call the police for you?
I've seen a few broken-into garages around town, I think most people aren't aware of the latch on the inside of most garage doors which functions like a deadbolt, although not as sturdy. Keeping those locked if possible would probably prevent a fair few break-ins too.
I think being on friendly terms with your neighbors is just as important, as they will be more likely to investigate or observe strange behaviour on your property while you're out. I've had neighbors call me while a friend was standing on the front porch, peeking into the windows to see if I was home, and it made me feel much more secure, even if no harm was done.
Does the police presentation talk about house alarms? Do they respond to the automatic security systems that will call the police for you?
07/03/09 @ 10:54
Comment from: nadine [Member]
rh-
the recording is about an hour long, and packed with great info. i believe there is mention of burglar alarms. and the programme is geared toward residences, not businesses. but, it's a great listen.
anyone who lives in a house in a neighborhood should listen, take notes, and follow detective fountain's advice.
the recording is about an hour long, and packed with great info. i believe there is mention of burglar alarms. and the programme is geared toward residences, not businesses. but, it's a great listen.
anyone who lives in a house in a neighborhood should listen, take notes, and follow detective fountain's advice.
07/04/09 @ 15:33
Comment from: Mel [Member]
Kristen> I wish you luck on your move to Midtown. My sister has lived there (corner of Prentis and Second) for five or six years now. She tells me that the police presence is actually better because they are not covered by general Detroit Police there, but rather by the Wayne State Police and also some of the private security at DMC. However, their crime rate is higher than ours, if anything. Her car has been broken into three times in the past two years, and there are muggings outside of her building all the time. There's a pretty quick response time from the cops, but even then, it's nearly always too late. :(
07/06/09 @ 20:28
Comment from: Kristen Farron [Visitor]
@ Mel: I used to live in Woodbridge a long time ago, and if I hadn't found the loft that I had found, I probably would move out to the burbs. Many of my friends live in Woodbridge, but one of my friends, a whitecollar Crossfire owner, has only lived there a short time and has already had his car broken into (...and backed into, and rocked into). I agree that WSU police are much more pleasant to deal with than Detroit police, and much more effective at their occupations than Hamtramck police. They've played a huge roll in cleaning up the corridor from what I have heard via many police-critical friends, a monstrosity of a task.
I've taken pretty much everything you suggested into account prior to my move, along with other things (like having 2 dogs - 1 of which is 130 lbs, and living somewhere with nice STURDY fixtures that I don't have to spend all my spare time making comfortable).
This particular loft has one indoor batcave-esque parking spot, and gated guest parking with secured entry attached to the building. I was able to chat up the former tenants - they never had issues, and the owners never had issues when they lived there. Please don't misunderstand... I'm not scared of people persay, but at this point in my life I'd rather remove myself from a situation that could result in my having to shoot someone in an appendage with buckshot at close range. This, of course, is based on Michigan law, and potential consequences that I would be subjected to as a result... emotionally, I'd rather stay in Hamtown, let them break in and experience what would transpire.
In regards to my house I'm pretty sure anything in the developed areas of Detroit proper, at this point, would be an upgrade from my current location. Although crime occurs more frequently in Midtown, generally, it has been my experience, that perpetrators are outsiders who do not live next door to their targets.
I've taken pretty much everything you suggested into account prior to my move, along with other things (like having 2 dogs - 1 of which is 130 lbs, and living somewhere with nice STURDY fixtures that I don't have to spend all my spare time making comfortable).
This particular loft has one indoor batcave-esque parking spot, and gated guest parking with secured entry attached to the building. I was able to chat up the former tenants - they never had issues, and the owners never had issues when they lived there. Please don't misunderstand... I'm not scared of people persay, but at this point in my life I'd rather remove myself from a situation that could result in my having to shoot someone in an appendage with buckshot at close range. This, of course, is based on Michigan law, and potential consequences that I would be subjected to as a result... emotionally, I'd rather stay in Hamtown, let them break in and experience what would transpire.
In regards to my house I'm pretty sure anything in the developed areas of Detroit proper, at this point, would be an upgrade from my current location. Although crime occurs more frequently in Midtown, generally, it has been my experience, that perpetrators are outsiders who do not live next door to their targets.
07/07/09 @ 11:43
This came across my desk today:
BBC: 1,000 cameras 'solve one crime'
Only one crime was solved by each 1,000 CCTV cameras in London last year, a report into the city's surveillance network has claimed.
The internal police report found the million-plus cameras in London rarely help catch criminals.
In one month CCTV helped capture just eight out of 269 suspected robbers.
David Davis MP, the former shadow home secretary, said: "It should provoke a long overdue rethink on where the crime prevention budget is being spent."
He added: "CCTV leads to massive expense and minimum effectiveness.
"It creates a huge intrusion on privacy, yet provides little or no improvement in security.
"The Metropolitan Police has been extraordinarily slow to act to deal with the ineffectiveness of CCTV."
Nationwide, the government has spent £500m on CCTV cameras.
But Det Sup Michael Michael McNally, who commissioned the report, conceded more needed to be done to make the most of the investment.
He said: "CCTV, we recognise, is a really important part of investigation and prevention of crime, so how we retrieve that from the individual CCTV pods is really quite important.
"There are some concerns, and that's why we have a number of projects on-going at the moment."
Among those projects is a pilot scheme by the Met to improve the way CCTV images are used.
A spokesman for the Met said: "We estimate more than 70% of murder investigations have been solved with the help of CCTV retrievals and most serious crime investigations have a CCTV investigation strategy."
Officers from 11 boroughs have formed a new unit which collects and labels footage centrally before distributing them across the force and media.
It has led to more than 1,000 identifications out of 5,260 images processed so far.
A Home Office spokeswoman said CCTVs "help communities feel safer".
08/25/09 @ 12:15
Comment from: roger [Visitor]
"helps communities feel safer" hmm, ya know i gotta say that if it makes them feel safer then that probably makes them easier targets. if they've got over a million cameras and yet crime still happens. although 1 in 1000 still means over 1000 crimes solved. i wonder how many of them were reliant on the cameras testimony.
sometimes psychology is a tool for helping the people, othertimes it can be a problem. In other words, making people feel safe is good "if" the are actually a little bit safer, not just to try to avoid being blamed for the people being unhappy.
sometimes psychology is a tool for helping the people, othertimes it can be a problem. In other words, making people feel safe is good "if" the are actually a little bit safer, not just to try to avoid being blamed for the people being unhappy.
08/25/09 @ 14:28
I think the point is, and this article makes that point, is that the systems aren't cost-effective.
Our public safety dollars could be spent on proven methods instead of technology fads.
Our public safety dollars could be spent on proven methods instead of technology fads.
08/25/09 @ 14:50
Comment from: jim [Visitor]
These cameras are absurd. They are only placing 6 cameras between Caniff and Holbrook, are they kidding? They won't even cover 1/4 mile of the downtown area.
And why wasn't this contract given to a local company again? Maybe because Daren, Eve and the DDA are involved and spending monay as fast as they can without researching this. Cameras could be placed on every corner section of Jos Campau bewtween Caniff and Holbrook for the same amount they have spent for 6 cameras. This was researched by a local company, but they were not given a chance to bid this project, because it was run by the DDA>
And why wasn't this contract given to a local company again? Maybe because Daren, Eve and the DDA are involved and spending monay as fast as they can without researching this. Cameras could be placed on every corner section of Jos Campau bewtween Caniff and Holbrook for the same amount they have spent for 6 cameras. This was researched by a local company, but they were not given a chance to bid this project, because it was run by the DDA>
08/25/09 @ 19:13
Comment from: Neighbor [Visitor]
Cameras' in England help deter crimes. BBC failed to mention pre and post camera crime rates. I suspect rate is much much lower since cameras have been installed.
British ruled the world for centuries and amassed enormous amount of wealth. It can afford all these cameras.
What do we got in our City? Only 6 cameras for all that money?
British ruled the world for centuries and amassed enormous amount of wealth. It can afford all these cameras.
What do we got in our City? Only 6 cameras for all that money?
08/25/09 @ 22:33
All the studies I read regarding the use of cameras in the UK are contrary to the claim that video surveillance deters crime.
What they do say is that they deter crime in the immediate vicinity of the camera and effectively push crime into areas as little as 200 feet away. The overall crime rate is unaffected.
So I have to disagree with Neighbor's statement.
Further, the model for use of the equipment isn't even similar to the practices in the UK. Our cameras will not be constantly monitored.
The $48,000 would be better spent on proven crime reduction techniques.
What they do say is that they deter crime in the immediate vicinity of the camera and effectively push crime into areas as little as 200 feet away. The overall crime rate is unaffected.
So I have to disagree with Neighbor's statement.
Further, the model for use of the equipment isn't even similar to the practices in the UK. Our cameras will not be constantly monitored.
The $48,000 would be better spent on proven crime reduction techniques.
08/25/09 @ 22:37
Comment from: Roger [Visitor]
I still say even if we installed a hundred cameras and they effectively made a doughnut of criminal activity around hamtramck then it has done something positive, it has pushed the activity out of the city limits, and when those crimes continue to fail due to most of the targets being as poor as they are then theyll change their tactics or give up altogether. Is it so selfish to be willing to accept a loss of crime for us even if it means increased crime for another city? I support the people of this great state but priority starts at home. If I were governor then it would be different but if I am a mayor or councilperson then home comes first. people shouldnt be afraid to speak their mind about these things, because I know if today a genie popped up and asked us to vote on shifting half our crime to another city that it would be almost unanimously yes.
08/26/09 @ 21:49
100 video surveillance cameras, what a disgusting idea.
08/26/09 @ 21:54
Comment from: rh [Visitor]
Did any of you come across anything positive about surveillance cameras? It seems to me in England the traffic cameras have a pretty good effect on speeding and running lights and what-not. That's just a personal observation, and not in any way empirical evidence.
I certainly wouldn't mind handing out a few speeding tickets on my street, (or a few parking tickets in the alley. . .) if it took a camera to do it. As it stands, it sort of seems like they're going to be able to point a camera right at my front porch! I'm feeling inclined towards Steven's view of the situation.
I certainly wouldn't mind handing out a few speeding tickets on my street, (or a few parking tickets in the alley. . .) if it took a camera to do it. As it stands, it sort of seems like they're going to be able to point a camera right at my front porch! I'm feeling inclined towards Steven's view of the situation.
08/26/09 @ 23:10
I think I remember some of the positive statements were regarding facial recognition software and being able to identify and track a large number of people. You know, where they go and who the associate with.
08/27/09 @ 00:26
Recent comments