SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) -

More than 1,300 crimes were committed last year at the eight sites where an additional 25 surveillance cameras are proposed for placement.

The City currently has 33 cameras, which carry a $450,000 price tag, watching 14 crime-plagued intersections. The City's Police Commission will vote Jan. 17 on eight additional cameras at intersections that last year saw a high volume of reported crimes, including drugs, stolen cars, homicides and robberies.

The cameras have stirred controversy as some city officials and the American Civil Liberties Union say they are not proven effective and infringe on people’s civil liberties.

Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Board of Supervisors supported the use of the cameras as one solution to bring down the high number of killings and violent crime offenses that have occurred in The City during the previous three years.

“We're hoping the cameras will deter criminal activity,” said Allen Nance, acting director of the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice. The cameras restore “a sense of public safety for individuals that frequent these communities,” Nance added.

“There are a lot of people interested in trying these cameras and I think that we should,” said Louise Renne, chair of the Police Commission.

Commissioner Joe Veronese, however, was not so sure. “The public is being sold on something that is not a real solution to the reduction of crime,” he said.

Veronese questioned whether the cameras were worth the price of people’s civil liberties. While they may be a temporary solution, Veronese said he would ultimately like to see them “phased out.”

Nance acknowledged that “public safety in high-crime areas can’t solely be left to devices such as crime cameras.” The City is looking to other measures to cut down crime such as foot patrols and the establishment of neighborhood watch groups, he said.

Nance dismissed concerns over civil liberties, however, saying that the cameras capture images “any one of us could use and see if we were standing on the sidewalk.” Also, he said, “There are a tremendous number of guidelines in place in San Francisco to limit the abuse or misuse of any image that has been captured by these cameras.”

Newsom announced in September 2006 that the San Francisco Housing Authority would add at least 70 more cameras to a number of federally-funded public housing sites, which see a higher volume of crime compared to elsewhere in The City. Since the announcement, a total of 68 cameras have been installed at 12 housing sites with the most crime, 22 of them at the Plaza East housing site in the Western Addition, according to Tim Larsen, general counsel with the San Francisco Housing Authority. The housing authority cameras are paid for by federal dollars and are monitored by housing authority staff. “In places where the cameras are installed criminal activity has subsided or moved away,” Larsen said.

If approved by the commission on Jan. 17 the cameras could be up the following week, according to Nance. Preliminary statistics suggest cameras are decreasing crime, but Nance said it is still too early to determine their effectiveness.

The Board of Supervisors adopted a camera ordinance in July 2006 that requires a report of a camera’s effectiveness one year from its installation.

Comments from Examiner Readers

7:20 PM MST on Tue., Apr. 1, 2008 re: "City�s crime cameras shortsighted"

In the know said:
The use of cameras is not only dependent on location, but the people using the system, the quality and reliability of the device storing the images, as well as the maintenance of the system. This system has been in operation reliably or several years and it is maintained. The news that doesn't get out, because it's not contriversial, is that in fact the system DOES work. It's caught criminals in the act of non-violent and violent crimes, child abductions etc. and reduced the man-effort to find and prosecute criminals. So don't assume you know everything and that the ACLU knows what the heck they are talking about. As usual, they simply stand on their "no big brother" pedestal spouting out the mouth.. that's all they do! Light reduces crime.. sure does, but EVERYTHING else counts too. there is no one solution. So get with it people. It's not a waste of money unless the people controlling the system don't use it and the Pittsburg PD are steadfast in it's usefulness.

3 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

5:40 AM MST on Thu., Mar. 27, 2008 re: "City�s crime cameras shortsighted"

Jon said:
Without wishing to state the obvious, there may be a very good reason why the existing surveillance cameras have not performed as required. It would be unwise to simply assume that the system has been correctly designed, installed and operated, when this news report clearly suggests otherwise.

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:21 AM MST on Fri., Mar. 21, 2008 re: "City�s crime cameras shortsighted"

Examiner Reader said:
Security cameras have not managed to STOP anything they've been installed for along the way. They didn't stop IRA bombings in London, they didn't stop the bombings at the Madrid train station. They haven't stopped robberies in convenience stores or gas stations. People still dash across national/international boarders and use execssive speed or run red lights on the roads, to name a few things. You name it and the cameras didn't STOP it. An argument might be made for their ability to LIMIT such actions.

0 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

9:23 AM MST on Fri., Mar. 21, 2008 re: "City�s crime cameras shortsighted"

logicbomb said:
So the police are against the cameras, and the civil liberty groups are against the cameras, and the criminals keep on committing crimes despite the cameras. Discontinuing this program, according to its status quo, is a no-brainer.

0 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

1:37 PM MST on Wed., Sep. 5, 2007 re: "Cities pursue cameras to stop crime, but results are mixed"

Examiner Reader said:
Cameras can't catch criminals, cameras can't stop a crime in progress, and cameras don't deter criminals who know they will not be convicted, not earn a long sentence or not be eligible for the death penalty. The only solution to crime is to eliminate violent criminals swiftly and permanently, preferably via execution, but life sentences are okay provided they stay in prison until the die.

62 agree | 276 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:37 PM MST on Wed., Sep. 5, 2007 re: "Cities pursue cameras to stop crime, but results are mixed"

Smile! said:
As of today, 213 people have been murdered in Baltimore. We have many cameras. Want safety? Get out of the city--whatever city you're in.

317 agree | 63 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:34 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 20, 2007 re: "Crime cameras remain a dicey issue in S.F."

Gretchen said:
I find the headline for this article: "Crime cameras remain a dicey issue in SF" very intriguing. As a resident in the Mission district I attend monthly community meetings at the Police Dept and almost every meeting someone brings up a request for more cameras in more locations. The police department repeatedly tells us it can't be done due to the trial period, the cost, the process, yadda, yadda, yadda. So here's the question: If the public wants the cameras, and the only complaints about "civil liberties" are from a couple members of the Board of Supes, why is the use of cameras portrayed as a "dicey issue"? Isn't it more of a "Progressives prevent crime abatement by protecting civil liberties of crooks" issue? We read articles and comments about "police not doing their job" but we never seem to read articles about "Supes putting up roadblocks to police doing their job." Please tell McGoldrick that he doesn't speak for the citizens of the Mission district - we want cameras

139 agree | 134 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate