More cameras for downtown Redlands
The Police Department is on pace to increase its use of surveillance cameras in Redlands following the City Council's decision to favor a plan called the "Downtown Security Enhancement Program."
The council voted 4 to 1 in favor of the plan on Tuesday. Councilman Jerry Bean voted no because he objected to the use of redevelopment funds to buy camera technology.
"If we use the RDA (Redevelopment Agency) as a piggy bank, we are going down a very dangerous path," said Bean, who argued that redevelopment money would be better used on infrastructure improvements and brick-and-mortar type projects.
The plan calls for the purchase of 30 new cameras, many of which would be placed Downtown.
"We're almost positive that we'll be able to push the images to officers' cars," Police Chief Jim Bueermann said.
The plan calls for the electronic eyes to be used at intersections, parking areas, pedestrian areas and "ingress and egress points."
The council, acting as the board of directors for the Redlands Redevelopment Agency, approved the use of $252,400 in RDA funds for the cameras. The entire plan could cost $550,000. The difference would be financed through multiple grants.
During Tuesday's meeting, Bean and interim redevelopment director Steve Dukett both seemed to be at least a little ticked off during the debate over whether it would be appropriate to spend RDA funds on a public safety program.
Bean contended that the project should be financed by the general fund, but Dukett offered his view that the cash-strapped city would not be able to allocate general fund dollars to new cameras.
"I would suggest that you would not have funds to do this for the next several years," Dukett said.
Comments
Once again Council + Bueermann get wild and crazy: Total Cost $550,000 divided by 30 cameras is $18,333 per installation.
All weather cameras are available for less than $1000 per installation. Hook-up to a cable or FIOS is trivial.
City is buying a Rolls Royce. Can taxpayers afford this? Are they effective? Who's going to monitor 30 cameras?
Per Bueermann: "We're almost positive that we'll be able to push the images to officers' cars". Per me: I'm able to get realtime images in my car with GPS data using cellphone and wifi for a total extra cost of the connection fee: $30/month. (My fixed home cameras cost $100 with encrypted wifi hook-up set up by a junior high student.)
Last time it was an airplane, then a turn signal camera, then salary increases, now more cameras.
Last time it was asking the water department to pay for water that they had already bought, before that bonds to pay for lush pensions, and now siphoning funds from future development and infrastructure.
I don't sense much respect for taxpayers, or reality.
Posted by: Charlie Trie | March 6, 2008 6:31 AM
FYI - I had the opportunity to operate one of these: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&Item=160216302310&Category=4616&_trksid=p3907.m29
from thousands of miles away. It worked great!
30 of these installed should be no more than $30,000, or 100 for $75,000. (Installation is simple: plug it in, turn it on. Do some minor fiddling with your server and Internet Explorer. Can be placed anywhere there's a plug. Can be wired or wireless.)
Only problem is there's no consultant fee because there's no need for a consultant. Any middle schooler can set one up.
Posted by: Charlie Trie | March 10, 2008 3:49 AM