Councilman Val Snider wants to postpone a vote on a proposal to buy and install surveillance cameras in downtown Colorado Springs.
Snider said the council will be getting a 2012 budget update that will show, among other things, whether the city is meeting its revenue projections.
“I thought that we would want to see what the picture is … before we decide to spend any more money on special projects,” he said.
The council is scheduled to vote on the proposal Tuesday.
The 10 cameras proposed for downtown would cost more than $160,000 to install and set up and $25,000 annually to maintain.
Councilman Tim Leigh said there are conversations about the Downtown Business Improvement District possibly picking up the annual maintenance cost.
“It’s a robust conversation,” he said.
Leigh, who supports the surveillance cameras, said he believes downtown is safe but that others may perceive it to be unsafe.
“This is a step in the right direction,” Leigh said. “Is it perfect? No. But it’s a step in the right direction.”
In addition to installing surveillance cameras, the city wants to pitch in $23,275 to help buy a sidewalk sweeper and increase police overtime by $25,000 in 2012.
This morning on the Richard Randall Show, Mayor Bach said that the surveillance cameras are a Police Force multiplier. He also stated that it’s worth a test, a 6 to 12 month test.
This past Saturday, we parked across the street on Tejon from Starbucks at 10:45 am. When we came back to our car, a homeless man (I’ve seen before) had just relieved himself in front of Saboz. He was sitting in front of her store, intoxicated and panhandling. Webcams are only part of the solution to handling the issues that are plaguing the downtown business owners.
If he had just relieved himself how was he sitting and panhandling. You migh be confused and dazed but most people can see though your story hour.
Lilithia
Yea, Janis. If your solution is big government watching your every move then yes, cameras are the solution.
Of all the difficulties that the downtown merchants might be having and of all the things that might be missing or bring remedy, how did cameras paid by the general fund get to the top.
What percentage of tax revenue does downtown contribute compared to the malls large and small around town, yet the malls are required by planning to own and be taxed on the land that they offer for free parking. Additionally, they hire their own security and provide and maintain their own cameras. After all that they still out compete downtown on price and selection most of the time.
This is our own hometown, local version of crony-capitalism and business welfare for a preferential few.
Cameras can’t fix what’s wrong with downtown, no matter how much the special interests beguile the council.
If merchants want cameras, let them pick up the full tab just like the rest of the retailers in this town have to.
Is this our version of stimulus to those we deem to significant to fail?
Cameras don’t multiply any forces. that’s a misnomer. Real live patrolmen still have to be alerted, called and have time to respond.from somewhere. Cameras will never be able to see down alleys, around corners or behind cars.
Who is determining the priorities for this town and our money?
For the $160,000 to buy, and the additional $25,000 per year to maintain, the city can pay a lot of cops overtime to saturate patrol the area (foot/bike/horse) which would have a LOT more impact than big brother watching us. Even IF the cameras see something, if there aren’t enough cops to respond, the cameras don’t do anything other than document what already happened. Doesn’t prevent squat. More cops, out of their cars and mingling with the crowds will have a more positive impact.
And finally, Leigh says downtown is safe, but not perceived to be safe…so we’re talking about spending all this money to address a PERCEPTION? Really?
Bach ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility but in fact has been fiscally IRRESPONSIBLE.
I received an email this morning from Leigh echoing the “police multipler” story. What a bunch of baloney. Cameras don’t help anything. Besides the attack on civil liberties, it’s simply a waste of money. I’m not going to feel safer because a camera is on a street corner with a volunteer possibly seeing something, and then alerting the police who may or may not come because they’re already so understaffed. The city is looking at the symptoms of the problem instead of the solution. Why is downtown unsafe? Address that problem. Upset with homeless population, then provide a place for the homeless to go, and maybe actually get some help. I’d feel much safer knowing (and seeing ) that police were patrolling the area and it gives someone work. Establishments that seek to remain downtown which are noted for causing the most disturbances should have their own security in place. Leigh notes: The capital cost for cameras is roughly equivalent to the annualized cost of 2 foot-patrol officers. That equates to three jobs at least added to our community because every job brings more work to another individual, usually at a 1.5 rate.
He then states that: Cameras are the least expensive way to watch-for nefarious activity in the downtown.
I was going to talk about that nefarious activity. Shame on those wicked folks. Look, joking aside, I’m all for safety and I want to make downtown a place of destination instead of closed store fronts and drug dealers. But cameras aren’t the way to do it.. I think Leigh is trying to state that by backing the cameras, this will save money. But when it comes to money, I’d rather put mine behind a person than a superfluous (I can use big words too) machine. I lived in a much larger city with a huge downtown that was always hopping and in fact is a top tourist destination. I never felt concerned about it. Guess what? No cameras, only foot patrols. The cameras are a waste of money. They are one more step to infringing on the rights of citizens. . If they want to add more police or security patrols while they address the cause creating all the nefarious symptoms, I’m all for that. If Bach and Leigh feel so strongly about it, then let them fund it completely. I don’t want my tax money going to fund a camera. Wait, I take that back, maybe we should install them in the mayor’s office.
Remember the police helicopters? They were a force multiplier: One helicopter could cover the area of 11 patrol cars. And, the helicopters had a range spanning the entire city, not just downtown.
Ultimately, the citizens didn’t like the price tag of the helicopters, so we sold them.
Is the underlying problem that we have a force that needs multiplying?
Crime Statistics can be viewed at CSPD Semi-Annual Report 2011 (latest) Downtown is Area 23 – Page 30 for the first 6 months in 2011.
Urban Institute article – Surveillance Cameras Cost-Effective Tools for Cutting Crime, 3-Year Study Concludes