Taking a Bite Out of Crime at the Municipal Marina

[XLFD]

Is your money being well-spent?  If there is no security problem somewhere, should we spend a bundle on security equipment?  Here's a story from the annals of the Municipal Marina Board (MMB), whose motto is "If your parent works for the City, do we have a cushy job for you."

 

3-17-2011 MMB: 

J. Shay explained that the City received a grant to put a security camera at Stearns Park/Beach. It would be located by the south concession stand and send a wireless signal to a receiver located at City Hall and the images would be monitored by the City Police Department and stored on a hard drive. The company that we are working with has said that we can add more cameras to the system. It has been discussed in the past, that the marina had interest in having a security system. This would be a way to cut down on the start up cost of a system. The cost is roughly $4500 per camera. It had been discussed that four cameras would be sufficient to cover the marina. The City would cover the system cost with the grant. This will be discussed in greater length at a future meeting.

5-19-2011 MMB: 

Discussion on the security camera quote and installation with SecurCom was started by D. Boes. This system is in conjunction with the Ludington Police Department. The LPD was awarded a grant for the system and camera at Stearns Park. The proposal for the marina is $21584.00; this is slightly over the budgeted amount of $20000.00. This proposal is for four cameras at the marina and one at Waterfront Park. The LPD has purchased all the hardware and software equipment and we are piggybacking on their system and are saving these costs. J. Shay pointed out that these cameras will be a deterrent to crimes, but will not eliminate it. The location of these stationary cameras are as follows; one at the corner of Loomis and Ferry Streets, one on the gas dock, one at the entrance to marina parking lot, and the last one by the bath house. The camera at Waterfront Park will be at such a location that it will see the playground, the pavilion with the restrooms and a couple sculptures. This is a system that we can build on to in the future if we see the need. A. Benedict made a motion to approve the expense of $21,584.00 for the five cameras and installation and K Holman supported. Motion carried.

 

By the next Meeting the cameras were nearly all installed, and by July all they needed were a little tweaking.   These cameras cost the City about $4300 each for their installation, quite a bit of cash, but is it money well spent?

 

I never thought of the City Marina as a den of criminal activity.  I can see the rationale behind having a camera around the Marina playground area as this public area has a lot of foot traffic, kids present, and activity.

 

But the City Marina?  What justifies the expenditure of four cameras (over $17,000) to monitor boats and piers?  I figured there must have been some crimes that must have recently happened to be the justification.  I asked the FOIA Coordinator for the police reports during 2009 and 2010 that took place at the City Marina.

Nine things happened there:

1:  2009- A car alarm went off and stayed on  MM1

2:  2009- A Noise Complaint   MM2

3:  2010- Another Noise Complaint  MM3

4:  2010- Parking Lot Vehicle Collision   MM4

5:  2010- Another Noise Complaint   MM5

6:  2010- Cart Missing, Used as a 'Cart'   MM6

7:  2010- Loose Dog   MM7

8:  2010- Loose Dog, Same, 2 hrs. later   MM8

9:  2010- Sinking Boat, turned out OK   MM9

 

Here are the crime figures for the last several years for Ludington (2010 is not available on the website)

 

Four minor noise complaints, two loose dog complaints, a backing up accident, and two non-incidents do not rise to the level of the 774 reported 'real' crimes in 2009 and the likely 800+ crimes of 2010 that happened in the rest of Ludington-- outside the crime-free confines of the Municipal Marina. 

Yet we have spent over $17,000 of public money to erect four cameras where the main problem seems to be an occasional bout of loud music.  Is this where the Targeted Area Problem Solving (TAPS) Committee thinks they should go, Chief Barnett? 

Here are three of those cameras, I failed to get a picture of the one monitoring the bath house.  Bet that one's a popular camera.

Entrance Eye

Gaspump Gazer

Central Seer

[Dave]

Putting up a single camera in a prime spot that covers as much area as possible I wouldn't be against... this does sound excessive considering it appears to be a very low crime area though. Beginning to think that the city might need to let the people vote on expenditures if they can't make better decisions then this.

[Willy]

I am totally againts these types of cameras. Not only are citizens being denied due process, and cooperation by the current individuals in power they also want to spy on us. This is Ludington not Detroit. Can't anyone see how wrong this is? Why should we be continually spied on? The Mayor, Shay and Councilors are out of control.

[AQUAMAN]

Didn't someone pronounce in earnest about 40 years ago to be careful about BIG BROTHER watching us? Yes, if "crime prevention is warranted and needed" per LPD/crime statistics, it would be fine. Otherwise, installing such equipment for the sole purpose of "spying" says where this administration is at and continuing to go. That being of continuing to infringe and squash individual rights, irregardless the need and cost to do so. For the $21K spent again, we could have had lifeguards for another summer season. But supporters are just going to tell you don't worry, it won't be used to spy, and the cost is paid for with grants, not our money.

[XLFD]

Even though I saw a rationale for the one camera, I do have to personally agree with Willie that cameras acquired with public dollars should have limited applications.  At the entrances to City Halls, Police Stations, Courthouses, even public schools usually are warranted.  But at the beach, on a marina gas pump, at a bathhouse, etc. where crime and criminals are not, is a complete waste of resources. 

And they will tell you that the beach camera was purchased (at an inflated rate) with 'grant' dollars, but the cameras that were purchased for the marina were with City dollars.  Ms. Holman, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and a willful purchaser of the cameras will correct you into thinking that this is money from the "Marina Fund" and is not tax dollars, as she has before. 

Bullschmidt; this marina fund is revenue garnered by the "City of Ludington" from individuals for use of this public property (meaning property owned by all). 

[Marty Redman]

I would dare say it is more of a "fee" than a "tax" that users of the Marina pay.  But this is a matter of semantics, it is money the city takes in.  And then promptly wastes, IMHO, if this and all that time wasted on cat feeding is any indication.  Are they discussing that topic again this next Monday evening?

 

[Eve Alone]

Why do we need four cameras trained on the municipal marina?

Papa Barnett wants to check up on his boy,

Mama Steckel wants to check up on her girl,

Papa Henderson wants to check up on his girls, 

Papa Wrobel wants to check up on his girl.

Not to see whether their working, just to make sure their safe.

They are concerned parents willing to spend enough public $ to fund this years lifeguard program on security cams.  

[XLFD]

You left out a few, but don't let it be said that we always bad-mouth City Hallers-- they are fine parents for buying this expensive security system for their kids-- with public money, LOL.

[AQUAMAN]

Those "kids" are on their cell phone constantly with parents and friends anyhow, no need to worry, I've witnessed that all too often visiting there. As for public scrutiny by taxpayers on the public servants, ya know, it's a given as Wanda herself stated somewhere earlier, that all we do is complain and want the entire government of Ludville to cease. Actually, nothing is farther from the truth. There is a definite legal need for the LPD, CC, and many other departmental offices to exist. But, when any or a combination of those office holders, whether appointed or elected, get off course and spend monies foolishly, react with policy unwarranted, defy State constitutions for individual rights, sign expensive contracts where competitors are unfairly ignored and not given proper notice to have fair bidding exist, hire their own kids and relatives for numerous summer and year-round jobs through nepotism, issue LOT's against any that would question their motives with their own records as evidence, then something stinks, and just has to change. Intimidation and vicarious inuendo type threats should be spotlighted, investigated, and followed through on. Damn the torpoedos, this just isn't what the USA is supposed to be about, even if apathy and fear are cornerstones of their power. Keeping an EyE on Ludington, and these various situations that get more serious and interesting as time passes, is what the Torch was established for, not for kissing up and pretending all is well just cause that's what the LDN and City Hall want us to believe.

[XLFD]

Well spoken, Aquaman!

[easymoney]

I guess I was lucky to get out of ludington before it became such a crime ridden area, altho, these cameras seem to only protect the playground of the wealthy.

In my day, they would have had to mount these in epworth heights, oops, we weren't allowed in epworth heights unless you worked there, which I did. Made about 4 bucks a day as a caddie.

Thought I was rich

[XLFD]

I'm pretty sure they have a fairly extensive security camera system out now at Epworth Heights.  It's almost a ghost village during the winters, and people want their property to be safe in their absence.  I managed myself to get into Epworth Heights a few times as a firefighter (earning about 8 bucks a day) for training and fire safety during the warm months.