The long quest for CCTV cameras may be close to conclusion with a proposal to spend $463,530 on the equipment.
A resolution up for consideration tonight and possibly up for a vote on Dec. 8 says the cost will be funded with $250,000 from the Special Law Enforcement Fund and $213,530 in Urban Enterprise Zone funds. Yearly maintenance costs of $40,000 will be paid through the Police Division's annual budget.
The funds cover 30 high definition cameras, a monitoring center and software "to monitor for crime and other Quality of Life issues throughout the city." The supplier is Packetalk LLC of Lyndhurst.
The purchase and use of cameras has been discussed for many years. In 2009, the city-owned Tepper's basement was considered for a monitoring center but was eventually deemed unsuitable. But as far back as 2006, the City Council discussed options. In 2012, work began on a monitoring center in police headquarters.
Besides how to acquire and monitor them, another much-discussed topic was where to put the cameras. Some said downtown, others felt they should be placed in high-crime areas. Officials were reluctant to specify locations for fear of vandalism or displacement of crime to other locations.
The resolution only states the cameras will be deployed "in areas deemed necessary by the Police Division, in order to provide effective crime control." The expectation is that their use "should contribute to the revitalization and economic growth of the city."
The meeting tonight is 7:30 p.m. in Municipal Court. View the agenda here
--Bernice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Two things Bernice, 1. Criminal elements are mobile they are not gonna pose for a camera. 2. Plfd officers need to get their rumps out the car and patrol. The areas that they know are problems still exist. Quality of life laws applied evenly across the board. Stop this profiling of Latino men as day laborers. But blackmen who gather seeking day work are viewed as criminals. One of the biggest complaints in the community is the two set of laws that are applied and oft times blacks go to jail and Latinos are reprimanded if that . So cameras how about justice first ? Mr. X
ReplyDeleteMaybe. What are your sources and your facts? Where are the numbers and where did they come from?
ReplyDeleteI find that perception doesn't necessarily mesh with reality. And, people are all to happy to just take someone's word for something instead of investigating the facts themselves. So, Mr X
1 - How many black men gather seeking day work and where do they gather?
2 - How many Latino men gather seeking day work and where do they gather?
3 - How many blacks have gone to jail in the past 3 years and for what?
4 - How many Latinos have gone to jail in the past 3 years and for what?
5 - How many arrests have been made for blacks and how many for Latinos?
You see what I mean. Give me facts - not "oft times...."
Having said that - I agree that justice must be the priority.
My sources and facts come from personnel experience and just for the record Latino men are African Americans also. Many are just indenial of their roots or just don't know their roots. Olmec, meso, Aztec, all connect to Africa and America . And numbers make my case they don't get arrested when arrest is warranted.
DeleteSeriously?
DeleteCameras would be a great idea. Much better than shot spotter. If cameras are in place, we can have a better chance of seeing what is going on and possibly preventing some of the crimes. Out of town drug buyers might think twice if they know they are on camera. Would also be great for the downtown and the train stations.
ReplyDeleteCameras DO NOT save lives, COPS DO!
ReplyDeleteAt first glance, surveillance cameras seem like a good idea. The acquisition of these close-captioned devices would be great if they weren’t so expensive.
The City Council wants to buy all these cameras as a way to prevent crime.
For a city that is so strapped for cashed, I think this is ridiculously costly plan. Why can’t we just put more cops on the street? Why isn’t the police department and city searching for grants to hire more officers?
It’s a real shame that the citizens could be on the hook for these fancy cameras. The proposal would cost them a whopping $463,530. That doesn’t even include the upkeep, does it? And where is the recurring revenue to the city? There isn’t. Pure and simple.
Hoboken went dark for years after they couldn’t afford to pay maintenance fees on their cameras. Guess what happened then? The cameras just sat there, unworkable and unattended, rotting away and getting vandalized.
If this resolution passes it will be a great disservice to the residents of Plainfield and it sends a message that we don’t trust our cops to do their jobs.
What was the decision?