| Page 3 of 3 < |
Federal Grants Bring Surveillance Cameras to Small Towns
Police Chief Keith Clark of Bellows Falls, Vt. -- population 3,050 -- is told "We need the cameras . . . the kids are bad" by resident Marie Perrault.
(By David A. Fahrenthold -- The Washington Post)
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
"It costs you virtually $100,000 to put an officer on the street, versus $5,000 for a camera," Zbacnik said. "I'd put as many cameras out there as you can."
Although some critics warn that there are hidden costs for camera upkeep and data storage, the market for small-town surveillance doesn't seem to be flagging. This year, a San Diego company called U.S. Relay will start offering a kind of pay-per-view surveillance, in which public cameras are installed and police departments pay to watch them.
So far, Vermont has been one of the few places where police cameras have kicked up a public fuss. Last year in Brattleboro, public outcry helped shoot down a proposal for surveillance of a downtown parking lot.
Also last year, residents in the town of Bristol reacted angrily when they learned that a new police camera could be used to pan across public streets. Finally, officials allowed the camera to remain -- with the caveat that police could not look around unless they thought a crime was occurring or imminent, Selectman Doug Corkins said.
And then there's Bellows Falls, population about 3,050, where police say they would impose strict rules to prevent the cameras from spying on residential areas, and to prevent officers from making tapes of their neighbors' activities.
Still, some people wonder if constant surveillance is really needed here.
"Why?" was the first reaction of Ivy Rawling, 27, who owns Seasonal Soups & Coffee downtown. "This is such a small town," she said.
But one doesn't have to walk far here -- less than a big-city block -- to find someone who believes that the cameras will be worth it because they might stop crime.
Not homicides and terrorism, maybe, as police fear in places such as Washington. But crime nonetheless.
"Within the last two or three years, we've had one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight -- at least eight windows broken" downtown, said Patricia A. Fowler, 56, co-owner of Village Square Booksellers. She went on, "We know we have a problem, and maybe this will solve the problem."


