Reading getting closer to installing outdoor camera network

[ChamberedRound]

From the Reading Eagle:
http://www.readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=83675

A surveillance system near downtown could be operating by summer. Police are waiting for grant approvals before awarding a contract.

By Jason A. Kahl
Reading Eagle

Reading, PA - After a decade of talking and planning and talking again, Reading officials say the city finally is set to implement a network of surveillance cameras to combat crime.

And if everything goes according to plan, the cameras should be up and running this summer in neighborhoods near center city, according to Police Chief William M. Heim, who has been a proponent of the cameras since his first stint as chief from 1997 to 2000.

“This has been in the works for a long time, but other priorities always jumped in front of it,” said Heim, who set up a similar camera system while he was police chief in Lancaster from 2000 to 2006.

Plans call for 22 cameras and a central monitoring system in City Hall staffed by police and volunteers from neighborhood crime watch groups, Heim said.

The system will include round-the-clock digital recordings from all of the cameras, which will be easy to search and retrieve, he said.

Some of the cameras will be in fixed locations and some will be moveable, Heim said.

The city is in the process of reviewing proposals from four companies to set up the system and perform maintenance for the first five years.

The proposals range from about $1.2 million to $1.4 million and include the cameras, monitoring and recording equipment and most of the maintenance, Heim said.

The amount does not include the salaries of staff who will oversee the center.

The city has $400,000 for the project. Before it awards the contract it wants guarantees it will get at least $1 million of the nearly $1.6 million in state and federal grants for which it has applied.

Once the contract is awarded for the first phase, work will get under way and the system should be up and running in three to four months, Heim said.

Mayor Tom McMahon has been a proponent of the camera system.

“I think this is going to make a huge difference in the safety of the city and in the perception of safety,” the mayor said.

The Reading Downtown Improvement District board also has been advocating for the cameras for at least two years.

The mayor noted that Allentown officials are pleased with a similar system they installed a few months ago.

“I think there were some privacy concerns and a little hesitation when these things were first getting under way, but that has not proven to be a problem,” McMahon said.

Heim said he plans to use the cameras in residential neighborhoods on the edges of downtown, neighborhoods where there have been many complaints about drug dealing and prostitution.

“The real goal is to make these areas more comfortable for residents and visitors to be in,” he said.

•Contact reporter Jason A. Kahl at 610-371-5024 or jkahl@readingeagle.com.

[ChamberedRound]

I love McMahon's quote:

“I think this is going to make a huge difference in the safety of the city and in the perception of safety,” the mayor said.

What an idiot. All that money spent to take away people's liberty, and in the end all they care about is the perception of safety, not actual safety itself. Personally I'd rather take responsibility for my own safety rather than have the government do it, but if the government is going to go through the trouble of stripping away people's rights and spend lots of their money to do it, you'd think they would actually try to make it safer.

What a bloated, bureaucratic, anti-American farce urban governments have become.

[LorDiego01]

If these idiots would read their own research on the topic, they would spend that money on street-lights instead.

[ChamberedRound]

If these idiots would read their own research on the topic, they would spend that money on street-lights instead.

Bravo, Diego. And good to hear from you again, haven't seen you around the site in awhile.

[P89]

It's only a matter of time before they'll want these as well.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336287,00.html
Doesn't matter what the research says, some jackass thought it was a good idea. We all know how safe the UK is.

[LorDiego01]

Bravo, Diego. And good to hear from you again, haven't seen you around the site in awhile.

Thanks man, I found myself spending too much time on-line (especially on forums), so I needed to take a break.

[Frenchy]

Cameras, serve more then one purpose, Yes they do deter crime somewhat if they are quality cams, I know in Montreal there are some cameras in place that actually are meant to replace hundreds of man hours at the airport.
One person can watch more then one camera and see hundreds of people at the same time looking for problems and dispatching agents out to that area to investigate.
IF monitored, the cameras can be beneficial. Problem in most cities, is they are not monitored they just record. So no one can react to an event taking place, they can only see after who/what/when/where and how things happened (to).

Generally, there are grants for these Items, Big box companies will send out the general concept to a city, the city asks the federal or state government to "grant" monies to help fund the product, and forget to add to it salaries to monitor them.

Last time I was in Florida I noticed quite a few cameras. Some thing that was not there in my youth.

I also noticed that within seconds of an accident, there where police and EMT there. Florida had a hard time with tourism for a while, I can remember tickets for Florida being $125.00 from Montreal with free parking for 2 weeks if you booked with certain hotels. People where just not comfortable with going there after hurricane Andrews because the population had shifted and the areas that where once touristic where now taken over by homeless ppl. Then there was talks through the travel agency of a new response time for emergencies explaining how the cameras where installed in major touristic areas and that monitoring these brought crime back to a realistic value.

People started to get on the planes again and prices where back to normal.

In Pittsburgh, there are private cameras out there for stores and news crews that show traffic patterns and help the police know when/if there is a problem on the roads. These don't really remove from your privacy as they are not there to "identify" you so much as problems. There are things out there that can monitor where you are much better then cameras that you would never think about and yet, the cameras that are meant to protect or help identify problem areas are what every one worries about. My Privacy is being diminished! When you are in public, there is NO privacy.

Do you really think the government cares that you go out Saturday night and walk down a street in downtown? Do you think Agent X will call your home and say Mrs B your husband was seen walking down main street with a hooker!
No they care about the 8 to 20 kids that hang around ready to harass some one for being on their turf.
Mind you if the camera is not monitored, it serves little purpose. So what people should worry about and complain to the Cities that have these cameras is the training and salaries of people that sit behind monitors and detect problems.

Just my point of view here, but in every day life, I see hundreds of cameras every where from stores to work to traffic lights. Maybe because I work in security I see a different value to them. If you go to a place like Lowe's or Home Depot, you probably have been on film more often in 10 minutes there then you would ever be on any given day on a city camera.
Does it bother you then? Yes I can say these large stored do monitor their cameras.

Want your picture taken? Go gas up and then drive to Walmart! Chances are you havent even left your car yet and your picture has been taken. Not to mention your licence plate.

[KeithPA]

Thanks man, I found myself spending too much time on-line (especially on forums), so I needed to take a break.

DORK!!!

Glad to see your still alive


Cameras don't work in London as their own report says, so not sure why we are trying to copy them.

[mikepro8]

I love McMahon's quote:



What an idiot. All that money spent to take away people's liberty, and in the end all they care about is the perception of safety, not actual safety itself. Personally I'd rather take responsibility for my own safety rather than have the government do it, but if the government is going to go through the trouble of stripping away people's rights and spend lots of their money to do it, you'd think they would actually try to make it safer.

What a bloated, bureaucratic, anti-American farce urban governments have become.

That is the first thing that caught my eye when I read the article too. Perception of safety. Gotta love it. I perceive that guy as being a moron who doesnt know what he is talking about and is wasting tax payer money. But, that is what politicians do. Growing up, my mom always told me to find something that I was good at, then do it alot... This guy found his niche with wasteful spending.

[Punisher]

not to be the party pooper, but if you're in a public place, then you are subject to public scrutiny. i have no problem with cameras. I'm a law abiding upstanding citizen with nothing to hide. too many times I've seen people who committed murder, rape, kidnap, etc. caught due to atm or other surveillance cameras. a cop could just as easily be walking the streets like they used to and it would be the same thing in my opinion. if they save on life or catch one murderer, they're worth it. if you have nothing to hide then who cares? if you want to commit a crime, do it on your own property and try not to get caught. what goes around comes around, though...........

just my input on the subject........