A decision fraught with such ignorance it boggles the mind...A simple ½ hour of on line research is all one needs to find credible sites that clearly outline far too many issues currently exist for surveillance cameras in public (downtown) settings.
Some basic findings below have to leave one wondering how much thought process went into this decision?
According to ACLU Executive Summary...
"An increasing number of American cities and towns are currently investing millions of taxpayer dollars in surveillance camera systems. But few are closely examining the costs and benefits of those investments, or creating mechanisms for measuring those costs and benefits over time. There is extensive academic literature on the subject—studies carried out over many years—and that research strongly indicates that video surveillance has no statistically significant effect on crime rates.
Measuring the success of public video surveillance systems is complex, because there are always innumerable factors that can explain a rise or fall in crime rates. Simply showing an increase or decrease in reported crime in an area under surveillance does not take into account general trends in crime and crime reporting, additional police in the areas under surveillance, better lighting, and perhaps most importantly, the possible displacement of crime to other areas not under surveillance.
According to Suite 101...
"Does Video Surveillance Affect Crime?
In the seven years since September 11th there have been no national research to track video surveillance’s effectiveness, leaving the questions as to its ability to deter open for interpretation. However, many criminals are bypassing the systems’ ability to act as a form of identification by simply wearing masks or keeping their backs to a camera. On the rare occasion new agencies can provide a full picture of a criminals face, it is often marred by lighting or simply the limitations of a camera posted at an odd angle.
From an MSNBC article...
"Police officials in San Francisco have delayed approving installation of new cameras pending a final study from researchers at the University of California, who said in a preliminary report this spring that the city’s 68 anti-crime cameras had failed to deter street crime. Where the cameras had any impact, the interim report said, they simply moved crime down the street or around the corner.
There are piles of studies that show the greatest deterrent to criminal and uncivil behavior in public parks is through active social programming and the presence of police or similar official personnel."
Basic concerns...
Who will be monitoring these cameras?
Will they be clearly marked as "surveillance cameras"?
How much will it actually cost taxpayers to maintain and operate the cameras?
And what about legal ramifications here?---I can see it now once any issue occurs downtown after the cameras are installed---Both sides of any court will use the video tape to slow down the legislative process with costly continuances---
"were still analyzing the surveillance camera tape your honor"
"we haven't received the surveillance camera tape your honor"...etc...etc
And to what degree of assurance do we have the video tape will actually be beneficial toward gaining a conviction?--None!
The NFL has been using instant replays to determine controversial calls for years now and any fan knows how silly this has become---the fans don’t agree on what happened---the announcers don't agree on what happened, and in some cases, the video replay judges with far superior cameras and 10 different angle views still screw up the call!---Yes Virginia, the camera does lie.
So how can our elected officials be so boneheaded as to pass unproven technology into law during these recessionary times???--Don't think for one moment these things won't end up costing us a fortune even though we received the hardware through some grant.
Oh well---c'est la vie...See ya on the big screen neighbors---Playing soon at our local police station.
citizens of evanston have zero clue what really goes on in their community. last summer there were string of strong armed robberies in the downtown area.yes! im talking about good old Church and Maple area. groups of teens were targeting men walking alone during the hours of 9pm-Midnight, beating them up and taking thier money. Two years ago a young woman was followed into her apartment and sexually assaulted. the crime reports dont shed a light on whats really happening. why would they? the idea is to give residents and furture residents a false sense of hope. if you only knew. face it cameras are everywhere. just type your address into google and look at the street view....and voila! there's a picture of your house. i welcome the cameras. your in a public area where people can see you anyway!
A shame to spend tax dollars on cameras downtown. I have lived here my entire life and have walked the streets downtown at all hours and felt safe. Not perfectly safe, but then again I do not choose to live in a gated, far flung suburban community and instead enjoy everything Evanston has to offer.
I can see a police camera out the windows of my condo and I am very glad it is there. It has had a major deterrent effect on quality-of-life crimes, such as brawling, vandalism and car break-ins. Before the camera was installed, we had dozens of people fighting in the street on a regular basis. Large groups hung out on the corner, being loud, openly smoking pot and drinking alcohol, and harassing passers-by. Adults, teens and children of all ages would be part of these groups. This situation would often eventually turn into a violent melee. Since the camera was installed, this doesn't happen anymore.
But as great as a deterrent as these cameras are, they have serious limitations when it comes to solving the crimes that do take place near them. I am grateful for the upgrade in technology with the new cameras because they promise to be more effective at solving these crimes.
Not to mention what helped to spur this "Unforgettable" history was the Shorefront publication "Gatherings: The History of the Emerson Street Branch YMCA, 1909-1969.
As someone who spent 14 years owning a business in downtown Evanston, I can tell you crime is every bit as prevalent in downtown as it anywhere else in Evanston. It just goes under reported – deliberately for the sake of keeping property values artificially high. If those who purchased Condos in downtown Evanston over the last decade actually knew how dangerous downtown Evanston really is, they may have thought twice about purchasing property.
The installation of these cameras proves just how dangerous Evanston really is – something I have been saying for more then a decade. The cameras will help our officers in tracking offenders, but it will also drive people who fear Big Brother away. The price we pay for tolerating crime in Evanston.
It is of my opinion that if we supported our police officers, if we were our brothers’ keeper, then the cameras wouldn’t be necessary. I personally intervened and stopped a woman being attacked where several people heard her screams for 25 minutes, but no one called 911.
That’s the world we live in and that is why we need cameras.
We have budget problems and the city council deals with it by adding staff ! Hello, you are suppose to be trimming staff and budgets.
Sure the aldermen want more staff. Just like corporate departments want to spend all their budget each year so their budget won't get the cut following year since not spent this year, the council wants to make sure they have even more money to spend and staff to rule.
Maybe the citizens should start with fewer aldermen, then cut from there.
It does seem like teacher training can be accomplished during the summer break. The 2 weeks of winter break also seem like a possibility, or spring break, or one of the many "non-attendance" days that most of the private sectors works on such as Yom Kippur, Veteran's Day, MLK Day, President's Day, or Pulaski Day. Seriously, with all that time out of the classroom there is no good reason to schedule teacher training this way.
I checked out Steve Funk's websites. Like many Libertarians, he has a few good ideas on social policy (legalizing marijuana and gay marriage) and a lot of nutty economic idea.
Here are some questions:
Funk (rightly) wants to liberalize marijuana and alcohol laws (lowering the drinking age), but I don't see anything about preventing drunk driving. Funk opposes sobriety checkpoints. While I agree that people should be able to drink and smoke whatever they want if they aren't harming others, this is not the case with impaired drivers. If the drinking age is lowered, what will be done to stop drunk/high drivers? And what does Funk think of banning cell phones or texting while driving?
Medical policy: I don't see a serious discussion about medical policy. Funk goes back to a mythical 'Golden Age', before insurance, when people bought their own insurance and poor people received charity. There is some merit to this. I would also people pay for their own medical care, so that they will keep an eye on costs. (I would also like to see enforcement of anti-trust laws and price fixing by doctors, and breaking up the evil unions (the AMA) ). But Funk doesn't seem to recognize that in the pre-insurance age, medical care was relatively inexpensive because medicine was primitive and not very useful. Not much could be done for serious medical conditions.
Today, with more advanced medical techniques, very few people could afford to pay for catastrophic medical expenses (like pancreatic cancer) out of their own pocket. This is where insurance is necessary, to spread the risk. With car insurance or property insurance risk can be spread among a large population; even though I have never filed a claim on my property or car insurance, I pay it just in case I do have an accident some day. It's not like I know that I will be in an accident next year, so I need to buy insurance.
That's not how health insurance works, unless it is mandatory - otherwise healthy people will avoid paying into the fund, and insurers will avoid people with a tendency to get sick (old people, people with genetic predisposition, etc.).
Like most Libertarians ("Dr." Ron Paul especially) , Funk doesn't seem to have realistic ideas on health insurance. In Nevada, Harry Reid's crazy opponent suggests that people pay for health care in chickens! See a list of chicken-denominated fees here
We will be collecting signatures every Saturday morning at the Evanston Farmers' Market from May 8 until June 12 and also during the YEA festival at Chicago & Dempster on May 15 from 10am until 4pm.
Please check our facebook page for updates on petitioning events as they get added:
Even if these downtown cameras help solve a few crimes, is it worth the expense of installing and maintaining them? What about the cost to our privacy? I believe there is a long-term psychological and sociological impact to being watched all the time.
Evidence that cameras actually prevent crime is mixed at best. For a thorough examination of the subject, take a look at Gill, M. and Spriggs, A. Assessing the impact of CCTV (PDF). Did the camera in Brummel Park prevent any crimes, or just move them?
Wouldn't $341,000 put at least one more officer on the street? I know the money is a federal grant, but that doesn't make it OK to waste it. The feds decided to splurge on funding municipal surveillance, but I don't think we should jump on that bandwagon just because someone else is footing the bill.
The whole tax increase strategy is all about old money vs. new money. Old money has their money safely secured from the taxman inside trusts and foundations. The plight of "less fortunate" is just a nice stick to carry around - when all they really want is to stay on top of the pile.
Gabel wants to increase income tax by 2/3 and to triple EIC - how is that for "an honest day's pay for an honest day's work"!
I said violent crime. Look at the police reports as I do on a weekly basis. Zone 3 has far more violent crime than Zone 1.
Oh, gasp, look out for those rowdy NU students in Zone 1. Public urination may be a crime but I'd rather have that crime in my alley than a shooting or an armed robbery.
Are we really using federal dollars in downtown when violent crime is much worse on the west and south sides of town?
Shame on the City of Evanston for wasting this money.
Any time the city proposes [or wants to force] tear-downs so they can 'build' or allow a 'build', there should be an automatic two year cooling off period.
Remember Dave's Italian Kitchen on Davis before forced out ? Several years before anything built and payments to Dave's to make up for their loss. [Maybe Dave's when he was at Hinman and Davis]
Custer and Reba---grocery, laundry, upholstry stores forced out and nothing done for years.
Chicago and Kedzie stores [apartments?]
Central and Eastwood---number of businesses forced out for 'builder'
Kendall College property---allowed upper class owners to keep housing 'below their status' out until developer walked away
I'm sure many residents can list ill-fated city projects.
Soo, where're going to have a whole new bur. starting up to maintain these cameras etc. What is next, camaras to catch speeders? We want less control of our lives Not more infringement in them?
I have not had a chance to visit the 'great room' but I'm glad the buildings are being preserved by NU instead of being abandoned or torn down.
Evanston Resident makes a great point. Any time someone talks of replacing an obsolete old building ( 708 Church, or the "Historic" Hahn Building, Central Street Theaters, Chuckie Dawes' House, etc.)..we have activists come out who want to preserve the allegedly charming and historic old building.
Here Northwestern took an old building, and has found a way to modify it and make it useful for current students. Why aren't all of our local 'preservationists' coming out in support of Northwestern? Why doesn't the "General Dawes Returns" group come out and support NU for preserving and remodeling the historic old building?
+1. It's sad that energy and resources are wasted in useless proceedings like this one. I have not had a chance to visit the 'great room' but I'm glad the buildings are being preserved by NU instead of being abandoned or torn down.
Wow. All of downtown Evanston is now going to be monitored by cameras? Very, very, very sad. My wife and I were debating whether to stay here when she's done at Kellogg, but this makes the decision easy for us.
Evanston, have fun with the whole surveillance society thing. It has worked out so well for the UK.
Have the supporters of the wind farm considered that these towers are going to be an eye sore for decades and perhaps all of our lifetimes? We are on the verge of exponential growth in clean energy technology. The new technologies will blend into their surroundings much better than the massive towers planned to be placed into the lake. Future solar, for example, may be blended into roof shingles or the paint of cars. Efficientcy will also be greatly increased requiring less solar panels or smaller wind turbines. While all this is going on Evanston will be stuck will giant eyesores stuck in our wonderful lake. The project will be so expensive that removing the towers anytime soon won't be an option.
A decision fraught with such ignorance it boggles the mind...A simple ½ hour of on line research is all one needs to find credible sites that clearly outline far too many issues currently exist for surveillance cameras in public (downtown) settings.
Some basic findings below have to leave one wondering how much thought process went into this decision?
According to ACLU Executive Summary...
"An increasing number of American cities and towns are currently investing millions of taxpayer dollars in surveillance camera systems. But few are closely examining the costs and benefits of those investments, or creating mechanisms for measuring those costs and benefits over time. There is extensive academic literature on the subject—studies carried out over many years—and that research strongly indicates that video surveillance has no statistically significant effect on crime rates.
Measuring the success of public video surveillance systems is complex, because there are always innumerable factors that can explain a rise or fall in crime rates. Simply showing an increase or decrease in reported crime in an area under surveillance does not take into account general trends in crime and crime reporting, additional police in the areas under surveillance, better lighting, and perhaps most importantly, the possible displacement of crime to other areas not under surveillance.
According to Suite 101...
"Does Video Surveillance Affect Crime?
In the seven years since September 11th there have been no national research to track video surveillance’s effectiveness, leaving the questions as to its ability to deter open for interpretation. However, many criminals are bypassing the systems’ ability to act as a form of identification by simply wearing masks or keeping their backs to a camera. On the rare occasion new agencies can provide a full picture of a criminals face, it is often marred by lighting or simply the limitations of a camera posted at an odd angle.
From an MSNBC article...
"Police officials in San Francisco have delayed approving installation of new cameras pending a final study from researchers at the University of California, who said in a preliminary report this spring that the city’s 68 anti-crime cameras had failed to deter street crime. Where the cameras had any impact, the interim report said, they simply moved crime down the street or around the corner.
There are piles of studies that show the greatest deterrent to criminal and uncivil behavior in public parks is through active social programming and the presence of police or similar official personnel."
Basic concerns...
Who will be monitoring these cameras?
Will they be clearly marked as "surveillance cameras"?
How much will it actually cost taxpayers to maintain and operate the cameras?
And what about legal ramifications here?---I can see it now once any issue occurs downtown after the cameras are installed---Both sides of any court will use the video tape to slow down the legislative process with costly continuances---
"were still analyzing the surveillance camera tape your honor"
"we haven't received the surveillance camera tape your honor"...etc...etc
And to what degree of assurance do we have the video tape will actually be beneficial toward gaining a conviction?--None!
The NFL has been using instant replays to determine controversial calls for years now and any fan knows how silly this has become---the fans don’t agree on what happened---the announcers don't agree on what happened, and in some cases, the video replay judges with far superior cameras and 10 different angle views still screw up the call!---Yes Virginia, the camera does lie.
So how can our elected officials be so boneheaded as to pass unproven technology into law during these recessionary times???--Don't think for one moment these things won't end up costing us a fortune even though we received the hardware through some grant.
Oh well---c'est la vie...See ya on the big screen neighbors---Playing soon at our local police station.
citizens of evanston have zero clue what really goes on in their community. last summer there were string of strong armed robberies in the downtown area.yes! im talking about good old Church and Maple area. groups of teens were targeting men walking alone during the hours of 9pm-Midnight, beating them up and taking thier money. Two years ago a young woman was followed into her apartment and sexually assaulted. the crime reports dont shed a light on whats really happening. why would they? the idea is to give residents and furture residents a false sense of hope. if you only knew. face it cameras are everywhere. just type your address into google and look at the street view....and voila! there's a picture of your house. i welcome the cameras. your in a public area where people can see you anyway!
A shame to spend tax dollars on cameras downtown. I have lived here my entire life and have walked the streets downtown at all hours and felt safe. Not perfectly safe, but then again I do not choose to live in a gated, far flung suburban community and instead enjoy everything Evanston has to offer.
Cost to our privacy? Long term pyschological and sociological impact?
You have got to be kidding with these comments. Right?
I can see a police camera out the windows of my condo and I am very glad it is there. It has had a major deterrent effect on quality-of-life crimes, such as brawling, vandalism and car break-ins. Before the camera was installed, we had dozens of people fighting in the street on a regular basis. Large groups hung out on the corner, being loud, openly smoking pot and drinking alcohol, and harassing passers-by. Adults, teens and children of all ages would be part of these groups. This situation would often eventually turn into a violent melee. Since the camera was installed, this doesn't happen anymore.
But as great as a deterrent as these cameras are, they have serious limitations when it comes to solving the crimes that do take place near them. I am grateful for the upgrade in technology with the new cameras because they promise to be more effective at solving these crimes.
Not sure that liquidating a business and laying off nine employees will really "Make It Better" ....
Not to mention what helped to spur this "Unforgettable" history was the Shorefront publication "Gatherings: The History of the Emerson Street Branch YMCA, 1909-1969.
As someone who spent 14 years owning a business in downtown Evanston, I can tell you crime is every bit as prevalent in downtown as it anywhere else in Evanston. It just goes under reported – deliberately for the sake of keeping property values artificially high. If those who purchased Condos in downtown Evanston over the last decade actually knew how dangerous downtown Evanston really is, they may have thought twice about purchasing property.
The installation of these cameras proves just how dangerous Evanston really is – something I have been saying for more then a decade. The cameras will help our officers in tracking offenders, but it will also drive people who fear Big Brother away. The price we pay for tolerating crime in Evanston.
It is of my opinion that if we supported our police officers, if we were our brothers’ keeper, then the cameras wouldn’t be necessary. I personally intervened and stopped a woman being attacked where several people heard her screams for 25 minutes, but no one called 911.
That’s the world we live in and that is why we need cameras.
We have budget problems and the city council deals with it by adding staff ! Hello, you are suppose to be trimming staff and budgets.
Sure the aldermen want more staff. Just like corporate departments want to spend all their budget each year so their budget won't get the cut following year since not spent this year, the council wants to make sure they have even more money to spend and staff to rule.
Maybe the citizens should start with fewer aldermen, then cut from there.
It does seem like teacher training can be accomplished during the summer break. The 2 weeks of winter break also seem like a possibility, or spring break, or one of the many "non-attendance" days that most of the private sectors works on such as Yom Kippur, Veteran's Day, MLK Day, President's Day, or Pulaski Day. Seriously, with all that time out of the classroom there is no good reason to schedule teacher training this way.
Once again D65 does not listen or care about the constituents who voted them into office.
I checked out Steve Funk's websites. Like many Libertarians, he has a few good ideas on social policy (legalizing marijuana and gay marriage) and a lot of nutty economic idea.
Here are some questions:
Funk (rightly) wants to liberalize marijuana and alcohol laws (lowering the drinking age), but I don't see anything about preventing drunk driving. Funk opposes sobriety checkpoints. While I agree that people should be able to drink and smoke whatever they want if they aren't harming others, this is not the case with impaired drivers. If the drinking age is lowered, what will be done to stop drunk/high drivers? And what does Funk think of banning cell phones or texting while driving?
Medical policy: I don't see a serious discussion about medical policy. Funk goes back to a mythical 'Golden Age', before insurance, when people bought their own insurance and poor people received charity. There is some merit to this. I would also people pay for their own medical care, so that they will keep an eye on costs. (I would also like to see enforcement of anti-trust laws and price fixing by doctors, and breaking up the evil unions (the AMA) ). But Funk doesn't seem to recognize that in the pre-insurance age, medical care was relatively inexpensive because medicine was primitive and not very useful. Not much could be done for serious medical conditions.
Today, with more advanced medical techniques, very few people could afford to pay for catastrophic medical expenses (like pancreatic cancer) out of their own pocket. This is where insurance is necessary, to spread the risk. With car insurance or property insurance risk can be spread among a large population; even though I have never filed a claim on my property or car insurance, I pay it just in case I do have an accident some day. It's not like I know that I will be in an accident next year, so I need to buy insurance.
That's not how health insurance works, unless it is mandatory - otherwise healthy people will avoid paying into the fund, and insurers will avoid people with a tendency to get sick (old people, people with genetic predisposition, etc.).
Like most Libertarians ("Dr." Ron Paul especially) , Funk doesn't seem to have realistic ideas on health insurance. In Nevada, Harry Reid's crazy opponent suggests that people pay for health care in chickens! See a list of chicken-denominated fees here
We will be collecting signatures every Saturday morning at the Evanston Farmers' Market from May 8 until June 12 and also during the YEA festival at Chicago & Dempster on May 15 from 10am until 4pm.
Please check our facebook page for updates on petitioning events as they get added:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Steve-Funk-for-State-Representative/306469171527
Contact us to volunteer your time or donate to support the petition drive:
http://www.votestevefunk.com/contact
Every signature gets us closer to our goal of getting on the ballot - thank you for your support!
Even if these downtown cameras help solve a few crimes, is it worth the expense of installing and maintaining them? What about the cost to our privacy? I believe there is a long-term psychological and sociological impact to being watched all the time.
Evidence that cameras actually prevent crime is mixed at best. For a thorough examination of the subject, take a look at Gill, M. and Spriggs, A. Assessing the impact of CCTV (PDF). Did the camera in Brummel Park prevent any crimes, or just move them?
Wouldn't $341,000 put at least one more officer on the street? I know the money is a federal grant, but that doesn't make it OK to waste it. The feds decided to splurge on funding municipal surveillance, but I don't think we should jump on that bandwagon just because someone else is footing the bill.
Margaret Thatcher's comment about raising taxes:
"The only problem with socialism is when you run out of other people's money"
The whole tax increase strategy is all about old money vs. new money. Old money has their money safely secured from the taxman inside trusts and foundations. The plight of "less fortunate" is just a nice stick to carry around - when all they really want is to stay on top of the pile.
Gabel wants to increase income tax by 2/3 and to triple EIC - how is that for "an honest day's pay for an honest day's work"!
I said violent crime. Look at the police reports as I do on a weekly basis. Zone 3 has far more violent crime than Zone 1.
Oh, gasp, look out for those rowdy NU students in Zone 1. Public urination may be a crime but I'd rather have that crime in my alley than a shooting or an armed robbery.
Are we really using federal dollars in downtown when violent crime is much worse on the west and south sides of town?
Shame on the City of Evanston for wasting this money.
Any time the city proposes [or wants to force] tear-downs so they can 'build' or allow a 'build', there should be an automatic two year cooling off period.
Remember Dave's Italian Kitchen on Davis before forced out ? Several years before anything built and payments to Dave's to make up for their loss. [Maybe Dave's when he was at Hinman and Davis]
Custer and Reba---grocery, laundry, upholstry stores forced out and nothing done for years.
Chicago and Kedzie stores [apartments?]
Central and Eastwood---number of businesses forced out for 'builder'
Kendall College property---allowed upper class owners to keep housing 'below their status' out until developer walked away
I'm sure many residents can list ill-fated city projects.
You say, There is far more crime in the far southeast corner of Evanston (Zone 3 and nearby) than there is downtown (Zone 1).
Really? How did you reach that conclusion?
Soo, where're going to have a whole new bur. starting up to maintain these cameras etc. What is next, camaras to catch speeders? We want less control of our lives Not more infringement in them?
I have not had a chance to visit the 'great room' but I'm glad the buildings are being preserved by NU instead of being abandoned or torn down.
Evanston Resident makes a great point. Any time someone talks of replacing an obsolete old building ( 708 Church, or the "Historic" Hahn Building, Central Street Theaters, Chuckie Dawes' House, etc.)..we have activists come out who want to preserve the allegedly charming and historic old building.
Here Northwestern took an old building, and has found a way to modify it and make it useful for current students. Why aren't all of our local 'preservationists' coming out in support of Northwestern? Why doesn't the "General Dawes Returns" group come out and support NU for preserving and remodeling the historic old building?
+1. It's sad that energy and resources are wasted in useless proceedings like this one. I have not had a chance to visit the 'great room' but I'm glad the buildings are being preserved by NU instead of being abandoned or torn down.
Wow. All of downtown Evanston is now going to be monitored by cameras? Very, very, very sad. My wife and I were debating whether to stay here when she's done at Kellogg, but this makes the decision easy for us.
Evanston, have fun with the whole surveillance society thing. It has worked out so well for the UK.
Have the supporters of the wind farm considered that these towers are going to be an eye sore for decades and perhaps all of our lifetimes? We are on the verge of exponential growth in clean energy technology. The new technologies will blend into their surroundings much better than the massive towers planned to be placed into the lake. Future solar, for example, may be blended into roof shingles or the paint of cars. Efficientcy will also be greatly increased requiring less solar panels or smaller wind turbines. While all this is going on Evanston will be stuck will giant eyesores stuck in our wonderful lake. The project will be so expensive that removing the towers anytime soon won't be an option.
Steve,
You all forget that money is a scarce resource...