DBIA cameras focus on public perception

If Peterborough was going to eventually end up with downtown surveillance cameras then the process underway is probably the best possible result. If that sounds like a lukewarm endorsement, it is.

Monitoring city streets is unquestionably an invasion of privacy. Being watched on a public sidewalk isn’t the same as being watched in your home but the difference is a matter of degree. You are still being watched.

Using video surveillance to “make the streets safer” by preventing crime is unquestionably a waste of resources. As local police have said, cameras don’t prevent crime, although they can help catch criminals.

Two past efforts to install a downtown surveillance network failed.

In 2004 the city responded to a Downtown Business Improvement Area (DBIA) request with a thorough investigation of the pros and cons.

The cameras didn’t materialize, partly because of cost concerns and partly because evidence showed that downtown Peterborough is not a high crime area. A homeowner is more likely to be the victim of a break-in than a storeowner.

City police revived the effort six years ago, applying for a $150,000 provincial grant to buy 12 high-tech cameras that would be mounted at intersections. City council endorsed the application but the grant didn’t come through.

We suggested then that businesses should do their own video surveillance. Set up a camera to monitor the storefront or rear entrance. Any crime or act of vandalism caught on video could be shown to police.

That is what will happen now, but with a twist. The DBIA will pay half the cost of basic surveillance equipment, up to $750. So far 24 businesses have applied or said they are interested.

It is somewhat ironic – but not surprising – that the DBIA is funding the surveillance program and has hired three security guard “ambassadors” to walk the sidewalks while at the same time arguing that the downtown is safe.

The “safe place” message is correct. Annual police statistics divide the city into five zones and downtown routinely has the fewest crimes.

But then there is perception. Some people do perceive downtown as unsafe. The cameras and ambassadors are there to combat that perception. If they also help police solve the occasional crime that will be a bonus.

As it turns out, city taxpayers are indirectly paying for both measures. They are funded from a $150,000 annual payment the DBIA negotiated in return for dropping its opposition to a casino on the edge of the city.

Cameras in storefronts don’t provide overall surveillance of public sidewalks and spaces. They are a more limited invasion of people’s privacy and owners have every right to install them.

Consider them an acceptable compromise.