More Covert Cameras in Ludington Sneaked In

[XLFD]

On November 8, 2016, Ludington City Manager John Shay sent a memo to the mayor and councilors advising them that a directed $40,000 contribution had been given to the city, this was then put in the Nov. 14 LCC Packet on November 11. 

Early on the 14th, the Mason County Press said effectively the same thing in an article about the generous municipal donation derived from the memo (MCP Nov. 14):

"City Manager John Shay said, in a pre-city council meeting memo, that the new security system will replace the malfunctioning equipment that provides video images of public areas including City Hall, Ludington Police Department, Waterfront Park, Municipal Marina, and Stearns Park."

The meeting took place and the police chief introduced the topic.  As seen in the video, nothing substantive was added beyond what was said in the memo that was divulged.  The next day the local paper, the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) said (COLDNews Nov 15) :  

"At the meeting (LPD Chief Mark Barnett) said the money will go toward buying a new security camera system to replace malfunctioning equipment that provides video images of public areas in city hall, the police department, Waterfront Park, the Ludington Municipal Marina and Stearns Park."

The official memo, the councilor packet, the MCP and COLDNews articles all claim that the money will go towards replacing older, malfunctioning cameras at city hall, the LPD, the municipal marina, and both Waterfront and Stearn's Parks.  This was my level of understanding until I found this article several days later, but created on Monday for UpNorthLive, WGTU/WPBN's website, which is reprinted in full.  There has been nothing I noticed in local media about the topic.

LUDINGTON, Mi (WPBN/WGTU) — A plan to install a police surveillance camera at a busy intersection is causing some concerns with Ludington residents.

Some see the camera as a deterrent of sorts.

Others see it as an invasion of privacy – even in a public place.

The City of Ludington has had a network of cameras in place for years, covering Stearns Park, the City Marina, and other public areas.

The video is monitored at the police department.

The equipment is old, damaged by two lightning strikes, and needs to be replaced.

While replacing the old equipment, the city also wants to add a camera at the corner of James Street and Ludington Avenue.

People who live and work in the city have a variety of opinions.

“If it is a deterrent,” says Garth Lemere, owner of AGS on Ludington Ave. “Maybe for someone who’s going to vandalize property or breaking in to something, hopefully that will keep that type of activity from the downtown area or anywhere, actually.”

“I believe that it will deter theft and give all the other businesses a little peace of mind, too,” says Natalie Barrette, owner of Cedar Chest Consignment Shop.

“I walk, I live in town so I do walk a lot of places,” says Carol McKendrick who works at Snyder’s Shoes. “And I know of a lot of people that do walk through the town and do walk around to places and it’s safer. People do like to hang out and have a good time in town. And obviously they know walking home there are a lot of ladies that do hang out in groups. That is just a safer walk for them.”

There is concern by some about the cameras and the real or perceived invasion of privacy that comes with them.

“Ultimately would I want to see a camera on every corner, probably not,” says Lemere. “Even as an individual that’s not doing something wrong, you’re going to feel like wow I can’t turn around without being scrutinized for something.”

“I think the common good of preventing or being a deterrent outweighs privacy,” says Benjamin Jensen at 108 Threads. “I mean, you’re in a public space, expect to be recorded or seen. If you don’t want to be seen, stay home, I guess is what I think.”

Some folks, who hadn’t heard about plans for the new camera, really had to think about how they feel about it, sometimes changing their minds mid-sentence – from thinking it’s a great idea, to wondering if it’s opening to door to more cameras, and more questions about personal privacy in the future.

The new equipment is part of a $40,000 gift to the city from the former owners of Whitehall Industries.

http://upnorthlive.com/news/local/ludington-plans-new-cameras-downtown

The Facebook post for this article had the following comments:

Shar On, the answer is 'yes', Ludington is the same city that had police cameras hidden in their air vents in the bathrooms right over the stalls.  They also had inconsistent stories about whether these worked back in 2013 or not, where the city manager tried to sell edited footage of the previous weekend from a camera that the police chief said hadn't worked for years.

Yes, this is symptomatic of what ails Ludington.  The city councilors, the local media, and the public are told some donated money would be used to replace older cameras at public parks, buildings and the city marina.  Yet, a TV reporter somehow finagles the news that a camera is being put in a new location, a street corner, without any city official telling us why it serves a public purpose there, and interviews several people in the downtown.  It is, of course, news to them. 

Chances are, they got the news not from the Ludington City Hall, but from the Traverse City MDOT Center, which is in control of anything like a camera being put in the state's trunkline right-of-way, as this camera will be.  WPBN/WGTU operates out of Traverse City, and probably got the news directly from John Shay's MDOT friend, Richard Liptak (we've detailed both their parts in competitive bidding shenanigans, a massive competitive bid failure and bending the rules for curb cuts) who manages that facility.     

As can be seen in the comments inside the article and on Facebook, this is a controversial placement of a camera due to privacy and security concerns colliding.   But when you realize there is no city-owned land in that block, you begin to wonder what's up.  In fact, the only city-owned property within three blocks of this camera are parking lots, which can't be seen from the corner of James and Ludington. 

Why are they pursuing this placement?  Is Ludington wanting to enforce traffic through cameras?  Why aren't they asking the public before they even attempt to get approval from the MDOT?  Why must we once again depend on a news agency three counties away for information on what our leaders are trying to do?  

[John Doe Jr]

Ranger Gate'   The deplorable's are at it again... I'm sure it won't be long until the ones who hide the cameras get caught on them, themselves. Barnett should put out a disclaimer stating this evidence does not apply to "Us.."