Cameras proposed for safer Spokane

Spokane business leaders are pushing a plan to install a video-surveillance system downtown, following a national trend that has spawned debate on whether such systems are effective and if they erode personal privacy.

Spokane officials haven’t talked publicly about the proposed surveillance system. The video camera project is one of four economic-development proposals submitted by Spokane to the federal Economic Development Administration for consideration. The surveillance cameras are part of a $40,000 grant request.

Leonard Smith, regional director for the EDA in Seattle, said the Spokane proposals have not yet been reviewed. If the camera project wins approval, it would be included in the EDA’s 2007 budget. Spokane-area business owners and economic development officials see the video technology as a tool in helping make downtown streets safer.

“We need to think outside the box and use good technology to enhance the downtown area, which has been growing and developing,” said Marty Dickinson, president of the Downtown Spokane Partnership, which represents businesses operating in the city core.

Security video cameras have been operated by numerous businesses on their own premises for years, she pointed out.

The grant would help create the first downtown surveillance system, with cameras placed in selected areas such as plazas and street corners. The proposal calls for using the wireless Spokane HotZone Wi-Fi network to send video feeds from cameras to a monitoring station staffed by Spokane police personnel – either officers or volunteers. The downtown HotZone covers about 100 square blocks.

Real-time tracking is considered more effective in deterring crime than using video cameras that simply record but must be reviewed later. Dickinson noted that if the grant is approved, the Spokane plan would start small, with no more than three video cameras initially.

“If we were to move forward, we would certainly involve the Spokane Police Department and ask them where the cameras would be best located,” Dickinson added.

Across the country, cities dealing with rising downtown crime and strapped police budgets have experimented with video surveillance. Chicago and Baltimore have tested such systems. Officials in Coeur d’Alene and Seattle say they’re studying the option but have no formal plans yet.

Last month, city officials in Philadelphia put the question of a camera system to a nonbinding citizen vote. After lengthy debate on whether cameras were needed, Philadelphians voted 4-to-1 in favor of paying for a surveillance system in the city’s core.

One downtown Spokane business owner said she has mixed feelings about the proposal. Chris O’Harra, co-owner of Auntie’s Bookstore, at 402 W. Main, said, “We have to do something about the safety factor. But I’d also hate for Spokane to turn into one of those cities with video cameras on every street corner.”

Andy Dinnison, owner of Boo Radley’s novelty and gift shop at 232 N. Howard, says he backs the camera plan. “I think using it is a useful way to make a difference. It can’t do any harm,” he said.Whether video cameras really deter crime is hotly debated. Spokane’s grant proposal, prepared by the Spokane Area Economic Development Council, claims research has found “the criminal element perceive surveillance cameras as a threat to their continued success and will leave the area.”

That’s not the opinion of Andy Jordan, the police chief in Bend, Ore. Earlier this year city officials in fast-growing Bend, in central Oregon, considered paying for a downtown surveillance system.

After examining the idea, Jordan concluded the costs of setting up a system are too high for the results obtained. The Bend proposal was tabled and Jordan said officials there think that was the right decision.

“It would take us $60,000 to get those cameras and get it working,” said Jordan. That doesn’t include the cost of hiring staff to monitor cameras, he said.

The Bend police have assigned a full-time officer for downtown patrols. “For a city our size, that’s a more effective way to deal with the security concern” (than cameras), Jordan said.

Privacy groups across the country have said video surveillance systems represent government excess fueled by post-9/11 security scares.

Dickinson said that if the federal grant is approved, it would be important to raise the issue of how to balance the need for security against the concern for privacy.

“I would anticipate we would have that discussion if this project comes to fruition,” said Dickinson.