advertisement

Columbia security camera issue to appear on April 2010 ballot

Monday, December 7, 2009 | 10:44 p.m. CST; updated 8:56 a.m. CST, Tuesday, December 8, 2009

COLUMBIA — A proposal to allow security cameras in downtown Columbia will be decided by city voters.

The Columbia City Council unanimously voted Monday to put the decision of allowing cameras paid for and controlled by the city on the April 2010 ballot after voting 5-2 not to approve the amendment itself.

The cameras are geared toward ensuring residents' safety.

The proposed ordinance was submitted by petition, which meant the council was required to either approve it or place it on the ballot by the rules of the city charter.

Supporters of using the cameras argued that they would help deter crime and apprehend criminals who are caught on tape.

"I think that there are really extremely good arguments for using the cameras," Columbia Mayor Darwin Hindman said. "It's true that there's no conclusive evidence that I can tell that they reduce crime, but there also isn't any conclusive evidence that they don't. And there's plenty of evidence that they're useful to the police."

Hindman and others referred specifically to  an instance in June when Adam Taylor, 25, was assaulted in a parking garage and five of the people involved were identified and apprehended with help from footage captured by parking garage surveillance.

Karen Taylor, the mother of Adam Taylor, initiated the petition that was submitted to the council and founded the group Keep Columbia Safe, which helped to gather the signatures.

She said people in Columbia wanted the cameras in place as a way to prevent violent crime.

"You know that the community at large supports this issue, and even one violent crime like what happened to my son is too much," she said.

Columbia Police Chief Ken Burton said the advantage of having the cameras is the deterrent effect they provide, especially when well-publicized. He said he could not quote any studies suggesting the effectiveness of the cameras but added that their usefulness was "intuitive."

"I wish I could tell you that it's guaranteed that it's going to deter crime, but it's just intuitive," Burton said. "It's kind of like what we would have done when mom was watching and when she wasn't."

Members of the council opposed to the ordinance quoted studies that had been done in a variety of places, all of which say that cameras similar to those proposed are ineffective. They said the money could be better spent on other public safety items.

"I firmly believe that local public safety policies need to be data driven and optimized for cost," Third Ward Councilman Karl Skala said.

There was also a suggestion of a "Big Brother" mentality whenever the city became involved in actively recording people.

"I think there's a definitive difference between public and private surveillance," Fifth Ward Councilwoman Laura Nauser said. "I believe that any property owner has a right to put a camera on its property."

Carolyn Matthews, an attorney on the board of the American Civil Liberties Union, spoke out against the cameras.

She said one aspect of the cameras that had not been adequately discussed was the prospective cost as a result of Missouri's Sunshine Law. She said there is a danger that the tapes would be requested by a lot of people and could cause the city to incur additional costs because of that. She also said she was not sure if the 60 days prescribed in the ordinance to keep the recordings would be adequate under the law.

Everyone who spoke against the idea of downtown cameras at Monday's meeting also said that they are in favor of using cameras in more secluded areas like garages because there is data suggesting they are helpful there.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

John Schultz December 8, 2009 | 9:45 a.m.

I asked city manager Bill Watkins at last night's hearing and he confirmed - if the city's voters pass this ordinance in April, the city council will still have final say on any surveillance camera contracts and can prevent their implementation. I think this petition won't really solve anything, it will just bring about more conversation.

(Report Comment)
Glenn Rice December 8, 2009 | 11:34 a.m.

Mayor says: "It's true that there's no conclusive evidence that I can tell that [surveillance cameras] reduce crime, but there also isn't any conclusive evidence that they don't." So we should throw money at this and hope it works?

I have an idea! Let's start sacrificing goats on downtown corners. There isn't any conclusive evidence that this practice won't reduce crime, so I say it's worth a shot. It would be cheaper than cameras, and the money would stay in our community -- unlike the mobile cameras desired by Carrie Gartner and the SBD, which are leased from a company in Michigan, paid for by all citizens to protect private businesses.

Kudos to Laura Nauser for digging up and sharing actual Columbia crime statistics and real data on just how "effective" these cameras really are.

Goats!

(Report Comment)
Ed Ricciotti December 8, 2009 | 12:57 p.m.

Laura Nauser was spot on with her analysis of the crime statistics of downtown. I agree with Glenn, kudos to Ms. Nauser.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro December 8, 2009 | 2:31 p.m.

("I think there's a definitive difference between public and private surveillance," Fifth Ward Councilwoman Laura Nauser said. "I believe that any property owner has a right to put a camera on its property."

Everyone who spoke against the idea of downtown cameras at Monday's meeting also said that they are in favor of using cameras in more secluded areas like garages because there is data suggesting they are helpful there.")

So like if business and property owners want to film their areas to encourage people to visit them, let them pay for it. Then they can decide if they want to pass on the added expense to their customers. The average taxpayer should not be burdened with these costs.

Personally, I don't go downtown anymore, since they decided to cancel Twilight Festivals. Seems like it was the only act of good will ever given to Columbia by the District's "entourage."
As far as I'm concerned, let them pay for their own attempted ideas concerning "safety and security."

(And a good burning goat bonfire and barbecue just might get me to take another look/see.)

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements