In Budget Crunch, Mayor Proposes New Security Cameras

by Paul Hogarth, 2008-06-23

After the Board of Supervisors heard testimony last week about health and human service cuts, the question now is how to restore them. And it won’t be easy with this year’s budget situation – unless we cut the fat out of the Mayor’s budget. The Board can start by cutting $500,000 that the Mayor’s office admits won’t be spent for a while – to install 25 new security cameras when the current ones don’t work. A recent study at UC Berkeley showed that San Francisco’s cameras only reduced petty theft within a 100-foot radius, whereas it had no effect on violent crime. Of course, we wouldn’t be in the budget mess we are in today – if the police officers didn’t get a 24% salary raise last year, putting us more into the red this year. As the Board struggles how to make budget cuts, cameras should be the first to go.

Over a year ago, the City installed 68 security cameras in high-crime neighborhoods to much fanfare. Civil liberties advocates predictably opposed it, and immigrant rights activists expressed concern that the federal government would use footage at protests to pursue its raids. But for residents of the Mission, Western Addition and Tenderloin, any effort to fight crime was a good thing – even though many admitted at the time that they weren’t sure if these cameras would be effective.

The Police Commission voted to approve the cameras – despite concerns raised at the time. “I voted for them with the caveat that this is a trial,” said Commissioner David Campos, “and if they don’t work then we need to move on and get rid of them. If they are not effective, we should explore the possibility of turning them off.”

In March, UC Berkeley completed a preliminary study which proved the cameras are not effective. Property crimes – like burglary, larceny and vehicle theft – did go down a little within a 100-foot radius of the cameras, but there was no drop in violent crimes – such as rape, homicide and robbery. Any decline was offset by increases in property and violent crimes more than 100 feet away – so the cameras just shifted crime down the block.

When the study came out, Mayor Gavin Newsom called it “conclusively inconclusive” – but that’s not what other officials said. Police Commissioner Joe Alioto Veronese told the Chronicle that they just give the public a “false sense of security,” and Campos made a motion that the current cameras be shut down. Regardless, Newsom insisted on moving forward with plans to add 25 new security cameras – and place them in more locations.

Like the Mayor’s Community Justice Center, this wouldn’t be a problem if the City were not also cutting health and human services for indigent clients to the tune of $10 million. But when we’re given a basic choice between cutting homeless drop-in centers or adding new cameras to “catch” people breaking into cars when the ones we already have are not working, it displays a shocking disregard for our City’s basic priorities.

Incredibly, the Mayor’s Office admits they won’t even install the cameras right away if the $500,000 remains allocated in the budget (the cameras cost $200,000 to purchase, labor involved to install them costs $100,000 and maintenance for all existing cameras is at $200,000.) “The funds will not be expended until a plan is developed for the location of the new cameras,” said Communications Director Joe Arellano. Meanwhile, groups that provide front-line services in the Tenderloin will simply have to shut down.

“The new security cameras are worthy of being cut significantly for a number of reasons,” said Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi. “It was important for us to find out what contribution are being made, and they still make a contribution. But I don’t see the investment being met.” As a member of the Board’s Budget and Finance Committee, Mirkarimi will help play a role this week in trimming the Mayor’s budget.

Where else can we cut fat in the City budget? The Mayor has proposed another $3.8 million to hire 150 new cops by the end of the year. That’s a ticking time bomb waiting to happen – as last year’s City budget approved a whopping 24% salary hike for police officers. We wouldn’t be in this mess today – if the Mayor had not pushed through a re-election budget that kept the police union happy while figuring out how to pay for it later.

Another problem is that the City Charter requires that the City have a minimum of 1,971 police officers on duty at a given time – putting the City in a budgetary straitjacket that makes it harder to find creative solutions. Supervisor Jake McGoldrick has introduced a Charter Amendment to repeal this requirement – giving the City much-needed flexibility so that social services don’t get cut every time.

In this nightmarish budget season, the last thing we should do is install more security cameras after the current ones have proven to be ineffective.