advertisement

LETTER: Cameras will keep downtown safe

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 | 6:49 a.m. CST; updated 11:43 a.m. CST, Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Now living in the country as  former residents of the city of Columbia, we support Proposition 1. We do visit Columbia and downtown on a regular basis and believe that safety cameras are a tool to help Columbia Police keep the city safe. When reading the Daily Tribune, we believe this is something Columbia needs if residents intend for their city to continue to be a safe place to live and shop in, especially downtown. If someone argues that these cameras take away their privacy, then one should ask what they are doing on a city street that is so private. Please help support and vote for Proposition One. We would vote yes!

George and Fay Carney live in Boone County.

 

 

 


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

Liz Mitchell March 22, 2010 | 1:21 p.m.

If Proposition 1 passes, the District will suffer its own recession as people who object to this intrusion of privacy take their dollars elsewhere. It's not that opponents are criminals who fear being caught for doing something wrong, as supporters of Prop 1 would like to portray them. The problem is that camera surveillance has been shown to be ineffective where it has been used and that our own Sunshine Laws will make all footage captured available to ANYONE who wants it. It is an invitation for stalkers and busybodies. Imagine your boss investigating where you shop, eat, have a few beers. Monitoring how late you and your coworkers stay out. Or patronize a competitor's business. There's far more likely to be abuses of surveillance than criminals caught.

Vote "No!" on Proposition 1!

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro March 22, 2010 | 4:32 p.m.

Bob McDavid is the only mayoral candidate who has hitched his wagon, (or is it that he's been hitched to the wagon,) to this exclusive area's city funded gift of cameras.
While privacy issues and a different kind of ambiance, (good or bad), would develop in "The District," I am more certain that this sorry attempt at making Ms. Karen Taylor feel better about her son's horrendous attack, (in an enclosed, city parking lot which all ready had cameras), will not help the Chamber of Commerce or "The District" attain their agenda to make downtown a wonderful, secure Tourist Attraction.
The resentment generated by this McDavid/Proposition 1 "marriage" will resonate in this town, regardless of the outcomes on April 6th.
As a private citizen, and nothing more, I am respectfully asking that Proposition 1 supporters withdraw their desire to pass such a limited useage proposal and encourage "The District" to pursue a CIT approach or another alternative to address their needs and plans for downtown Columbia.
http://www.abraxis.com/wdarling/blueprin...

(Report Comment)
Johnathan Smith March 22, 2010 | 5:55 p.m.

Cameras infringe on personal freedom and raise the threat of a big brother environment! I will vote no. I do not trust government and do not trust people who are willing to sacrifice their freedom for personal security. Columbia is a safe community and people crying about crime need to move to a real city and see what crime is like.

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
Ben Franklin

The only way to true safety is to deal with the social and educational issues that plague not only Columbia and the USA, but the world!

(Report Comment)
Liz Mitchell March 26, 2010 | 12:05 a.m.

Well said, Ray!

The CIT is an interesting idea. At first glance, the best aspect is the fact that it is truly local. The people affected make the decisions, unlike Prop 1, currently up for a vote here in Columbia. If we approve Prop 1, folks who live far from the District will tell those who live in the District or neighboring areas that we must be surveilled for the safety of those who deign to visit our humble neighborhoods. Is this really concern for OUR safety? Or is it really a drive on the behalf of the gated or nearly gated community members to feel more secure when they encounter the great unwashed who are their not-equals?

(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