SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - While The City has set aside money in this year’s budget to add more surveillance cameras in high crime areas, the balancing question between the cameras’ effectiveness and the concerns of people’s civil liberties remains.

The question of whether the 64 existing surveillance cameras monitoring 22 intersections are effective in deterring crime or catching suspects will be left unanswered until at least the fall.

Installation of the cameras began last year as a pilot program to help deter crime. Communities plagued by violence have generally supported the devices, while critics say they have no effect other than to infringe on civil liberties.

The Police Department and the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice will present a study to the Police Commission no earlier than September showing how effective the cameras have been, said Lenore Anderson, deputy director of the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice.

For any additional cameras to be installed, the Police Department would have to request the release of funds from the board, the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice would have to recommend locations, and the Police Commission would hold public hearings and then vote on their placement. That will not happen until the study on the effectiveness of the existing cameras is issued, according to Anderson.

On Tuesday, when the Board of Supervisors approved Mayor Gavin Newsom’s budget for the fiscal year, Supervisor Jake McGoldrick called for a separate vote on the $200,000 line item for the purchase of 25 additional crime cameras.

“When we were told that we were going to get some pilot project cameras, that was one thing,” McGoldrick said. “But bit by bit by bit, the erosion, I think, of civil liberties issues here, by these cameras being put all over the place, is something that I think we are going to live to regret.”

The board approved the funding in a 7-4 vote.

“There is a lot of community support for any and all strategies to help reduce crime and violence and we are hopeful these are being positive,” Anderson said. She said she would not offer an opinion about the cameras’ effectiveness until the study is complete.

jsabatini@examiner.com

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