Tag Cloud
Thursday, May 23, 2013
City Fails to Plants Seeds of Empowerment But Plants Surveillance Cameras
by Rhonda Erwin, published on December 5, 2010 at 7:42 PM
Storyline: City Agenda's
An Open Letter to the Mayor and Council for the City of Sacramento
As a resident of the City of Sacramento who has continuously stood before you begging, crying, pleading for you to address the violence, which has left our children dead on Sacramento city streets or leaving Sacramento to become the walking dead in California prisons, I have several questions regarding your position on surveillance cameras.
In regards to Sacramento Press article: Police Working on Surveillance System
http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/41637/Police_working_on_surveillance_system
Within the article it states: “There are many factors that will determine where the cameras will be placed...Among those factors are crime rates, crime trends, special events and areas that may present a threat to public safety. The fixed cameras will be placed based upon recommendations from City Council, the Police Department, and the availability of existing infrastructure.”
Instead of planting seeds of employment, resources, opportunities in crime areas the City of Sacramento decides to continue to plant weeds of surveillance cameras? Why haven't you used the factors of crime rates, crime trends, special events, scientific based, researched based, evidence based studies to determine where to place resources for those affected/ exposed to crime/ violence?
Are you planning on placing the cameras in low income communities?
When the City of Sacramento held the closed-door-away-from-the public-discussion- on where the cameras would be placed did you even once consider if the area is in need of surveillance cameras then it must be in need of resources, opportunities, employment for the residents of that area?
So, the City of Sacramento had the time, energy, resources to have a discussion among themselves on how to arrest people but has YET to have a discussion among themselves and with the public on the needs, other than suppression, of those same areas? You can't have a discussion on crime prevention other than law enforcement funding but you can discuss where to place cameras due to crime?
Will the cameras be placed in Oak Park, Meadowview, Valley Hi, North Sacramento? If you felt the need for the cameras in those areas why have you never felt the need for a Boys & Girls Club in those same areas? Why have you never felt the need to hold a Council session to address crime in those areas? Did money -a grant- have to become available for you to value the life or freedom of City youth?
Their are no Boys & Girls clubs...in Valley Hi, Meadowview, Oak Park, North Sacramento but their is crime so instead of resources those areas get cameras in an ignorant, ineffective attempt to arrest away crime?
Surely you're not ignorant to think this is in any way a solution to crime prevention for the city of Sacramento. Their are surveillance cameras at schools, stores, gas stations, regional transit, malls, on police units, businesses, cameras within the Department of Human Assistance which capture images a block away and crime has not decreased.
We see surveillance criminal activity images on the Sheriffs site, media releases stating "Do you know these thieves?" surely you can't think placing additional surveillance cameras will significantly address violence in our city. Ask the District Attorney's office how many cases they are prosecuting due to surveillance footage? It doesn't appear the District Attorney's office case load has decreased due to surveillance cameras.
It doesn't appear our jails have become less crowded due to surveillance cameras? It doesn't appear surveillance cameras significantly prevents crime. Lots of not-so-bright often under educated and living in communities lacking resources, employment, opportunities commit crimes. It appears surveillance cameras merely aid in arrest / prosecution but the crime goes on. Will you create a balance and give us employment, opportunities, resources in the same areas you place cameras?
You can not pacify a community affected and exposed to crime by merely placing surveillance cameras in their communities and call it crime prevention. You can not silence our cries as you shift crime away from one area (the area with a camera) and move it to another area (the area without a camera). How long will you continue to shift crime instead of looking at avenues to prevent it?
Do you plan to continue to let this cancerous polyp of violence in Sacramento break off and spread to other streets and bodies of Sacramento area youth and families? As it is our cries echo from one Sacramento neighborhood to another due to the city decades long neglect of addressing youth violence with employment and opportunites.
Since it is obvious many of you were looking at money- a grant of $615.000- and not at the people will you NOW have the discussion on how you plan to prevent crime?
If you place surveillance cameras in areas affected by crime/ violence and do not place employment, opportunities, resources in those same areas you are doing no more than rounding people up as cattle and milking the County of Sacramento of Social services programs. The City of Sacramento will become a contributing factor in the County of Sacramento taking away programs, services, opportunites for the needy to fund Sheriff, District Attorney, Probation, Courts.
Your surveillance cameras will aid in the County budgets being monopolized with suppression rather than services for the mentally ill, poor, and needy.
Do you plan on planting seeds of empowerment in the same areas you plan on weeding out people with cameras for incarceration? In the May 28, 2009 SN&R 'Surveillance City' article, SPD Sgt Norm Leong stated, "It’s free money, why wouldn’t you take it?” Is that why cameras are gong up because it's free money?
Are you looking at money or looking at the people affected/ imposed to crime? When will you look at life, freedom, prevention verses grants and money for suppression? Have City residents, affected/ exposed to crime, become a Sacramento City Commodity?
Cities have received Homeland security grants for over 6 years (http://www.newsreview.com/chico/content?oid=31334 ) have you spoken with the cities and asked how or if the surveillance cameras reduced crime or were you just looking at money and not the people?
Many of us know you value grants but when will you value LIFE and FREEDOM for city youth?
I hope you can or will answer the questions listed in this letter at the next city council session.
Related articles on Homeland security grants:
http://www.newsreview.com/reno/content?oid=42502 Homeland Pork
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content?oid=998297 Surveillance City
"The ALCU has for years produced studies showing that surveillance cameras don’t prevent crime. In fact, according to an ACLU survey of crime statistics in San Francisco, crime actually increased overall at locations where public-surveillance cameras were installed."
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/snog/blogs?date=2009-09-01 City Council Humors ACLU but won't slow down on Surveillance Scheme
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
If he said that, he's an idiot or he's a fool.
Statements like those exemplify the disconnect public servants have with thier constituency, and reality for that matter. Many bureaucrats and other public servants have succumbed to the thought that money from Washington is free. It isn't. Somebody, almost always a taxpayer, worked long and hard for it
Anyway; video cameras are a necessary and evolving component in our comunities. If for nothing else than to obtain data in the affected areas. If we don't know what's going on there, we cannot fix it. And that goes for public servants too. We should be installing cameras at city hall, the water department, community services department, municipal services, and yes, police departments too. That way we can see what's going wrong there also.
I'd like to believe that all crime could be fixed by improving access to opportunities in communities, but I doubt it. Bad people have been part of societies even when they have the best education, job and financial access, and supreme surroundings. Examples to this abound. Furthermore, it has been proven to me over and over again that even if we get the good opportunities, and spend our resources applying them in the fashion you lobby for, washington just sends us more criminals or more people that overwhelm our ability to keep up with the programs by way of immigration, both legal and illegal. Despite the rhetoric from the feds and the state for that matter, they don't want us to have better and safer communities. They operate to their advantage when we are consumed with problems. We cannot fix things at the top when we are overwhelmed with daily problems
that's why we your solutions are only well intentioned, but no real fix
And once again, if Leong made that statement, he's a fool or an idiot
But nevertheless, I do not call out Johnson to be mean-spirited. I do it hoping he'd look away from the man in the mirror (I’d say look at the man in the mirror but we’re talking about Johnson--lol) It is my intention and hope that he’d look at all the residents in the city, including those of us divided by a community of victims and suspects. Thanks again for the comment and I am glad that I didn’t single him out either.
It is easy to think that lack of opportunity causes crime, but frankly it is precisely the other way around--crime drives away opportunity. Why invest in a neighborhood when what you build will only be ruined?
And frankly, there are a few people who need to be weeded out for incarceration.
But frankly: Crime drives away opportunity?? It appears to create opportunity since lots of folks profit off of crime including surveillance companies and well it surely appears to not drive away opportunity for political career advancements.
And frankly no one is suggesting people commiting crimes should not be arrested or prosecuted. I merely suggested the mayor and council think outside the Sacramento-Police-Department-campaign-endorsement box and off the ineffective-arrest-away-crime-surface and use data to also look for ways to prevent crime. Yes, their are people who need to be weeded out for incarceration and their are people/departments who need to be weeded out for political campaign endorsements.
You are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine- creates a balance- lol Thank you for sharing. We can agree to disagree. I'd have no problem if the mayor and council were following crime trends but they appear to be following the money
Have a great day
I found this article in the Herald Star Oct 2010 where -----" McCafferty said there are currently 30 cameras in the hilltop residential neighborhoods and the downtown as well as public parks in the city. The cameras were purchased through grants that stipulated the devices could only be installed in low-income areas. Footage from the cameras has been used in court cases ranging from homicide to shoplifting, he added. Walker said the cameras have been strategically placed in the city." http://www.hsconnect.com/page/content.detail/id/549612/Law-enforcement-split--on-surveillance-cameras.html?nav=5010
My question is was the grant Sacramento received one that also stipulated the cameras could ONLY be installed in low-income areas? And if so, surely crime exists outside of low income areas. Heck, if it didn't we'd have a lot of private defense attorney's unemployed. WHY then only target one group of people- and is that legal?
naga loves to run his/her mouth about forcing people to do this, or challenging people to do that. if you have an opinion, hold to it. just back it up with sources or reasons why you have those opinions. calling KJ a molestor doesn't exactly fair well in an argument about how the city is being run. do we want to continue to rehash old and tired discussions which don't affect how the city is run?
discussing camera surveillance is a HUGE issue for this city. not the misc. B/S some what to continue to drag in. it appears the ENTIRE CITY COUNCIL (including the mayor) have gone down a path that the majority of us feel is wrong. so i ask this question to all of you:
what are you going to do about it?
"Bulllies" are those who can't express different opinions without being obnoxious about it.
But I like our special parades!
My opinion is that they are an act of WAR on US, we the citizens!!-->>>a direct MIND-CONTOL-provocation by Sacramento trying to be Big Brother. Like John Lennon said, "WE DON"T NEED NO BIG BROTHER SEE!"
Since I can’t comment or give my appreciation to the kind words Naga had written since they are removed. I will just comment on what you have written Rich. I disagree with your comments towards naga. I've read Naga's comments over and over on many subjects and Naga does back it up with facts, ideas, suggestions..... In fact, Naga does so very impressively I might add.
While I was sometimes distracted with your insults I did appreciate reading comments such as "discussing camera surveillance is a HUGE issue for this city… it appears the ENTIRE CITY COUNCIL (including the mayor) have gone down a path that the majority of us feel is wrong. so i ask this question to all of you: what are you going to do about it?"
I wish their would have been less bickering because I really want to read and learn more of how to address this surveillance topic at city hall. I stood alone tonight but I hope their comes a time when this matter is on the calendar that I will not stand alone and we can have it pulled for public discussion. Again, I'd read your comments tossing aside the personal attacks to understand how and what you feel about the surveillance issue. That's a discussion I'd like to continue having with you if it can be done without you weaving in distractions and some not-so-accurate remarks.
For the record: What Naga was doing as far as I could see and I can't read it now was pulling your comments and responding to the way you can pull a bait and switch when it pertains to remarks on Johnson. You're not ignorant you aren't misunderstanding what or why I write something; you're misrepresenting it for some reason. Quite frankly I don't care why you’re doing it. I have bigger fish to fry. But I do care about your opinion on the subject of surveillance cameras and wonder if you could share more. This is not a game for me. It's not a competition of the wits I need to understand how to get this matter on the agenda for public discussion. And what if anything can be done about it.
1) Can someone come up with multiple cities, preferrably of similar size to sacramento, where surveillance cameras were used and the crime rate actually went down?
2) According the this SacPress article http://sacramentopress.com/headline/41637/Police_working_on_surveillance_system it appears our brilliant city council has decided to go out of the area and hire a southern california firm for this project. Nothing like spreading the wealth to the local economy and helping local companies.
3) Has anyone truely examined what the costs are for this project? First the cameras will run at least $1,000 per camera, maybe more. A quick search of a Pelco product brought me to this website http://www.provantage.com/~56CSURV_PELC.htm. If these cameras will truely be used for crime prevention, then most likely the camera with the most features will be required for criminal indentification, pan-tilt-zoom capabilities, outdoor rating, probably bullet-proof, etc. Also, do the trailers (and they say multiple, how many is multiple?) come equpped with the recording equipment and processors required to monitor and store the information gathered by the cameras? there will also be designing of the system, installation, startup, testing, configuration of the recording equipment, etc. the bottomline is the grant is for $615K and i am not sure that grant will cover the entire expenditure for a complete and operable surveillance system. If this is the case, where will the extra funds come from?
Lastly, how will our return on this investment be measured? can it be measured? are we looking for crime rates in a specific area? if crime goes down, what happens if arrests go up, how will the city pay for incarceration of the criminals who are arrested?
i honestly think someone, maybe even the mayor, heard about this and thought it was a great idea, but not enough research and discussion, including public, was done for this. notice how i haven't even brought up the privacy issue which is just as important as all of the tangible dollars and cents and logistical information i have brought up. does someone know, have any of these issues been addressed in a public session by the city council?
The topic was not Naga, but your misdirection. Which you answered with another "bait and switch" as Rhonda pointed out, right off the top. Followed by a well stated comment. Which you are capable of. Apparently.
Rhonda says: "You're not ignorant you aren't misunderstanding what or why I write something; you're misrepresenting it for some reason. Quite frankly I don't care why you’re doing it."
One reason it matters, is if you're doing it intentionally, it dumbs down discussion and if you're doing it unintentionally it dumbs down discussion. The hostility makes SacPress a less interesting place to read.
Maybe (some of) you can stay on topic with a reasonable comment like the one above.
When I got up this morning it was the only comment listed and I wanted to comment then and tell you how much I appreciate it. I was running late for traffic court and decided to do so when I returned. On the way to traffic court tears flowed thinking how blessed I am. I believe if God allows us to go through it then God can bring us through it and bring us the people necessary, people reaching out in the spirit of love. People may not always agree and heck some may not like one another but I feel in addressing this issue or youth violence or anything we have to remember it is bigger than us, bigger than our feelings, likes, dislikes..... It's not personal, it can't be. It has to be business. I asked for your help and you reponded no matter our sometimes differences of opinion and for that I give you respect. I give respect where respect is due. Thank you very much.
2) I am going to seek the answers and inquire into the information you listed. Please come back. I'm going to make some calls to some of the many people I have met on this journey and find out how I can obtain the information you suggested. I will share what I learn. I don't want you to think I am ignoring your response, especially since I greatly appreciate it.
Naga, I appreciate with all my heart you standing up for me and protecting me when sometimes my comments are misrepresented. I appreciate with all my heart the respect you've given me whether we agree or not. I appreciate with all my heart you never insulting or underestimating my intelligence or misrepresenting what I write. Naga, while I appreciate the protection, love and encoragement right now more than love I need your advice, wisdom and knowledge. I hope that you come back. I need your help in understanding what if anything can be done to get a matter on the city agenda for public discussion. I hope that you help me. If not I will understand. You earned my respect a long time ago. Thank you too for being here.
http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/191/rulesofconduct#190
We ask that you please focus on the topic of the article and refrain from attacking one another.
Thank you for respecting our terms of use.
Homeland Security is a fraudulent waste of time and money and was only set up to spy on regular Americans.
Do your homework people.
Did you know that Facebook and Google were started with seed money from the CIA? No, you didn't. And of course, you don't have the time to find out why it way matter. Yeah, I know, I hear it all day.
One day, there will be no more dark places for evil to hide.
If you click on your own username, a list of all comments you've left will come up. Perhaps you were looking for a comment that was on a different post?