Call me paranoid, but I cannot help but visualize a police-state regime instated in the freedom loving United States when I look at funding request from US city mayors with big spendings in the name of public safety, buying us city-wide surveillance, armored vehicles, drones and robots.
This is all under big red bald letters “Economic Recovery” and “Create Jobs Now”, a conference of mayors organized by the mayor of Miami in January 2009.
Cities across the country, according to America's Mayors report, have each submitted requests asking a total of $5,6 billion in federal funds (public money) for Public Safety jobs and technology programs. In comparison, Public Schools program requested budget is about $7.1 billion and Public Housing is only $2.5 billion.
Some of Public Safety programs are really creative. Take a look at the programs and the price tags:
“Surveillance Camera Network ‐ A citywide camera system will be installed to enhance the Department’s ability to respond to criminal activity and investigate crimes. (OPD). Funds would convert space in the Eastmont Police Station into a state of the art facility.”
In addition the city of Oakland is requesting $450,000,000 for the new Police Administration Building, “to replace seismically vulnerable and obsolete Admin Building.”
Install Surveillance Cameras System City‐Wide with Shot‐Spofer Technology
Charleston, SC = $4,000,000
Public Safety Public Safety Wi‐Fi and Video Surveillance System
North Richland Hills, TX = $3,500,000
Public Safety City Wide Surveillance Camera Project‐ Install cameras in areas of higher rates of crime and city property.
Salt Lake City, UT = $200,000
Public Safety Aerial surveillance drone to monitor crowd and event situa3ons; 1 officer and equipment.
Gary, IN = $750,000
Public Safety Police Equipment Moderniza3on: New launchers, new uniforms, tac3cal plates for our for our bullet proof vest,fire‐resistant suits, weaponry (sniper rifles and sub‐automa3c machine guns), recon robot, tac3cal camera,
tac3cal blankets, armored vehicle.
Arlington, TX = $1,600,000
Public Safety SWAT equipment (support vehicle, mobile command unit, explosive entry program, armored vehicle)
Seriously, is this what we need to spend money on?
If this is the price tag, I don't want to buy it. Do you?
How about we spend it on this?
* Public Schools
* Unemployment insurance
* Bailing out people out of high price mortgages
* Bailing out college students out of their educational loans
* Bailing out people out of high interest credit card bills
* Public parks
* Social services
* Health services
Must I continue the list?
Hey, what do you know.. the Associated Press ran an article today where the following was a quote:
“”The American people are watching,” Obama told a gathering of mayors at the White House. “They need this plan to work. They expect to see the money that they've earned — they've worked so hard to earn — spent in its intended purposes without waste, without inefficiency, without fraud.”"
That's right!!! I'm WATCHING!!!
Bail out credit card holders and spend $$ to prevent or rescue people from forclosures???!!!
Drink the socialist coolaid is your silly message! Hhow about LESS GOV and reducing taxes and giving the corrupt & greedy public service unions that are bankrupting us ..along with the illegals, a big bkick in the ass!
Take your juvenile ACORN communist BS and go jump in the lake!
hehe, it's funny how you perceive this as socialist and communist, but without throwing these big words with strange and different meanings, it's interesting that you are using the words “greedy and corrupt” next to the public service unions… and not next to BANKS (private for PROFIT institutions)!
Giving public money to those private FOR PROFIT institutions is the most socialist act I've seen! Not the mention, they have been making profit so far and now are enjoying our $700 billion of bailout money…
Anyway, this article is more about what cities are requesting our public money to be spent for, specifically, in the name of public safety.
City-wide Surveilance anyone?
By the way, I wrote to Mr Obama about this, asking him not to fund these programs in the name of public safety. If you wish to write to him, you can do it easily here:
whitehouse.gov
I'm not so sure video cameras are indicative of some sort of police state. Surveillance cameras are already installed in Muni, in taxicabs in New York, in malls by private owners of those malls, in your grocery store, the 7-11, and your local mall's parking lot. It's not some sort of revelation that we're caught on camera in our daily lives more often than we know. European cities like London already have video cameras everywhere. Yet, Great Britain is not considered any less a free society than our own. Cities such as Oakland deal with a level of crime that is making their communities a hellish place to live. If installing surveillance cameras in public areas helps the Oakland police catch more criminals and clean up their streets, I am all for it.
Now, everything can be used for a good purpose and an evil purpose. But the way to stop abuse is not take away potentially effective tools of fighting crime. It is to train officers on the legal and illegal use of force and evidence.
There are several issues with that (city-wide surveillance, for example):
* spending money on it does not make me (or anyone I know) feel safer. It makes me feel somewhat paranoid…
* videotaping people without their consent is a violation of privacy (unless it is a public place) and even then, they have to be notified.
* why should my (taxpayer) money go to fund increased police forces and equipment that makes their job easier… if anything, I'd want to make my job easier.. I want it to fund MY JOB!
* installing video cameras actually entices crime and vandalism (some criminals actually like being on camera, those that don't, simply brake them)
* just because there are already cameras everywhere we go, doesn't mean we need more. I would argue that because of that, we need less!
* and finally, do we need to spend $5 billion dollars in taxpayers money on police and their gadgets when people (whose money we're spending) don't have jobs???? No, no, no. Creating jobs in police would only mean we are policing each other and that is, my friend, a police state.
Well, to address your points one by one:
* This specific spending does make me feel safer, so there is at least one person that you know that it makes feel safer. Not all spending makes me feel safer, but this does. Paranoia is not always a rational response.
* I did not see anywhere that the city is going to come to your house and place video cameras in your home! They ARE only placing it in public places. And no, there is no legal or Constitutional requirement that you be notified when you are videotaped in a public place. In fact, legally, there is pretty much no expectation of privacy in a public place. Your expectation of privacy in a public place cannot be so overriding that safety measures are subjugated to it.
* Taxes are not a pay-for-product concept. It is the use of the common wealth for the common good, as governed in a democracy. Every taxpayer dollar spent does not require the approval of every taxpayer. And I'm sorry, but I don't think it's such a bad idea to give the police the tools they need to do their job, i.e. law enforcement.
* If you have any empirical proof (i.e. a peer reviewed statistical study or analysis) that installing cameras increase crime, I'd like to see it.
* If you lived in a high crime city like Oakland, perhaps your perspective on whether installing more cameras would help would change. Either way, your original point in the post wasn't that this spending was just wasteful, but that installing cameras in public places means some sort of a police state or less free society.
* Having a sufficient police department does not mean a police state. Currently, a lot of police departments are understaffed, and staffing them fully does not make a police state. Yes, $5 billion spent on public safety measures and adding police officers in communities ravaged by crime is a GOOD idea.