West U gated community: $400 per house
West U’s camera crime fighting options…
One: A Beta Test
Perimeter coverage: unknown
Already approved, the city council already appropriated $200,000 for two intersection surveillance camera systems. That budget estimate is high, though — the real cost should be no more than $148,000. This amount includes the engineering and hardware to fully carry out the system.
Each intersection system would actually consist of four camera units — each camera unit is actually two cameras joined in a single housing unit. One camera uses infrared technology to allow a usable picture at any time of the day. The other is a color camera captures the license plate, the make and model of the vehicle, and oftentimes a picture of the people in the vehicle.
Each intersection system will have four camera units, providing a multi-directional recording of all vehicles passing through. However, if intersection systems are placed on the perimeter of the city, the camera units will be located in the city of Houston.
Two: Strategic perimeter coverage
Perimeter coverage: 75-85 percent
With 6-8 intersection surveillance camera systems at major intersections on the perimeter of West University Place, almost everyone entering or leaving West U would be captured on video. A drawback is that each day thousands of vehicles which never enter West U would also be photographed.
The conservative cost of Option Two would be $444,000-592,000.
Three: Virtual Gated Community
Perimeter Coverage: 100 percent
There are 64 possible vehicular access points to West University Place. Option Three would locate an access point surveillance camera system at every possible entry point to West U.
The conservative estimate for a Virtual Gated Community would be $2.4 million, or about $400 per West U house. The actual price would likely be lower because of the economies of scale associated with a larger purchase.
George Boehme is the Managing Partner of InstantNewsWestU.com and West University Essentials magazine.
View more articles Subscribe
This discussion prompts me to watch “Enemy of the State” again !
Let’s get cameras up at all entry points ASAP. Where can I send my $400 check? We have a great peaceful neighborhood in the middle of a major city. We should invest in security infrastructure. If we can have a tool to help solve crimes after (and possibly before) they happen, it would be a victory in and of itself. And I think it’s likely when people who brazenly assault our citizens start getting arrested that word will get out that we are watching and it will not be so easy to get away with as it is now. I don’t think criminals are as dumb as many would have us believe–just more desperate and opportunistic. It’s certainly a step in the right direction in my mind.
If the WUP police are so great, why are innocent seniors targets of the police? If the mayor is doing so great, why is the emergency cash reserve being used, special interests are given discounts at the expense of seniors and the disabled, and fee are going through the roof? WUP resources should be used to police criminals, not citizens! WUP staff spy on law abiding citizens. There are enough resources to address the problem if used properly. Instead of using police to watch over special events, use the police to combat crime! Wake up taxpayers!
I’m all in favor of sensible use of technology to enhance our security, but we need to be much more thoughtful than the average community that has deployed sensors. Merely deploying camera arrays does not solve the problem we are trying to solve. Its greatest use is as a deterrent — much like the big dog in your house that you know is just a pussycat but a world-be thief would fear. If that is the goal, and there’s nothing wrong with that (my folks couldn’t afford a security system for their house, but they did keep an official-looking security sign and sticker by the front door!), then Council should deploy a number of cheap dummy camera units to significantly reduce cost while obtaining deterrence benefits (obviously these units would need to be rotated with real units throughout the city to maintain their advantage).
If the goal of the cameras, as I suspect most here would expect, is to capture images of criminals and would-be criminals then we need to think hard about what that accomplishes. Automated image capture is great for post-event analysis. Tracking down suspects. Judging by the comments I read here and on other West U online venues, I don’t think that’s what people are asking for. I’m not arguing against it to be clear–just defining the role of the camera. If we are afraid of criminals kicking in doors, mugging us in our driveways, and prowling through our yards, the cameras won’t impact that. If we are worried about our kids being harmed while at the park or while playing outside, the cameras won’t stop that either. We can track down the perpetrators more effectively with the camera information, but this won’t reduce “fear.”
If the goal of the cameras is to proactively assist our police force in deterring crime then there is a greater cost than just the hardware discussed in this article and by Council. Cameras would need to be connected to a central monitoring station, preferably at the police station, where dedicated employees are trained to watch for warning signs. The data speeds would need to be fast and reliable to ensure the ability to react quickly. This, of course, will raise questions of appropriate profiling (no different than an officer on the beat, I suppose, but now it covers much more territory) so proper training will be important. Even this provides incremental benefits only to the extent of the knowledge of the officer monitoring the screens. Highly seasoned officers (expensive–and you need multiples for shift coverage) would be the best operators since they would have a better sense of what to look for. With multiple cameras and/or 100% coverage, however, it would be nearly impossible for an individual to take all of that information in (and how many highly qualified officers want a desk job staring at screens anyway?).
What I think we imagine this system will do is monitor traffic, proactively flag license plate numbers that appear in police databases, and proactively flag images of people in vehicles that match images of those in police databases. The use of software algorithms (call it AI, machine learning, heuristics, whatever) is the only way to achieve the goals we appear to seek but the cost of doing this is much higher than what we’ve contemplated so far and the solution is more complex than what has been discussed so far. There are also tertiary factors to consider, such as the privacy of individuals (especially those who may have homes in the line of sight of the cameras), false identifications, and the greater potential for negative outcomes from an increased number of police interactions with individuals flagged by a system (correctly or incorrectly). We would also have to consider the backlash that would be inevitable if the system caught something of note, but human factors caused us to miss a subsequent criminal activity.
I repeat that I’m not stumping for or against this proposal or any other proposal. I just read about this and felt that what we are contemplating and what people seem to expect are not matching up. Hopefully we can ask the right questions, set expectations appropriately, and then do whatever seems appropriate to meet our needs.
And for the record (for what it’s worth) — I am in favor of a software-driven system at a greater cost, but I am skeptical that our city has the resources to pull it off (not a knock against WU, but an admission that the technology and process is complicated). My recommendation would be to deploy a limited number of sensors and dummy sensors in key locations to capture images that can be used in post-crime pursuits and as visual deterrents, while investing more in our already excellent police force (including upgrading any officers who may not meet our highest expectations).
Well said, as usual, Brokelyn. While certainly in favor of a mechanism to supplement our excellent Police Department, I did express the following in an email to City Council last week. Some of the key elements are not mentioned in the above, so let me reiterate my basic concerns regarding this issue here as well … which include cost, overall effectiveness, as well as privacy issues.
A secondary concern is that this current movement for action appears to be based on more of an emotional appeal, instead of a careful, rational study regarding the ultimate cost/benefit of purchase, installation, ongoing monitoring and maintenance, as well as attendant privacy concerns.
I’m basing my response, in part, on the previous City Council meeting, recent specific WestU social media discussion, and the numerous studies that confirm that security and safety is relative; and, that no matter how initially accomplished, both are always subject to being easily circumvented. A fact shown quite clearly in studies of these same issues in gated communities, where certain types of crime are indeed deterred, but overall reduction in crime is not necessarily a clear cut result.
These studies also raise questions with regard to the cost/benefit ratio of crime deterrence with surveillance cameras; as well as controversy surrounding their ultimate forensic value to law enforcement, along with the aforementioned privacy issues.
And, the privacy issue should be of paramount importance, as the cost to safeguard collected data will likely be a major consideration in overall cost.
These privacy related issues include the storage and disposition of the images collected, the length of time they are kept, their security during storage, and, most importantly, possible access by third parties, either through the ever increasing threat of security lapses, or by the increasing attractiveness of the sale of any data collected as a future source of revenue, or to offset costs.
Since ethical standards with regard to privacy seem to be constantly in flux, a forward looking consideration for the protection of citizen’s privacy should be foremost in the minds of city council/management.
While some of the the links below start out addressing gated communities, many end with some interesting and informative experiences with a combination of methods, including education, that may help in your decision making.
Surveillance cameras can undoubtedly be a component of a neighborhood crime prevention scheme, but even with the necessary personnel to actively monitor, an expensive endeavor, we’ll still be primarily reacting to crime; and that should raise the questions: at what cost, and what additional resources will it be necessary to make the effort an effective deterrent?
We already have a component that goes a long way to crime deterrence – active police patrolling.
It may be that patrolling, combined with a strongly organized neighborhood Watch program may provide more cost effective crime deterrence, particularly when factoring in the combined cost of purchasing, installing, maintaining and monitoring cameras at the 45 +/- points of ingress and egress, which appears to be required for complete, effective coverage?
In addition, an effective argument can be made that safety/security begins at home, with the individual, and the parent; and that surveillance camera’s alone will not be the panacea for which many seem to be seeking on an emotional level.
The latter speaks directly to the importance and necessity of concurrent education.
Therefore, I feel that this matter should not be rushed into without careful research and consideration based upon a diligent focus on all the issues, an exhaustive review of all available options, including education, as well as possible combinations thereof.
I provided links to some comprehensive studies of the various methods and combinations of methods to City Council, but I do not think they would be allowed here. What is apparent is that most of them appear to seriously question the cost/benefit ratio of the type of surveillance system being discussed.
What a f—- windbag. Torturing people with a 1000 word essay professing to be some security expert, but really saying little and all while having no knowledge or appreciation of actual, real threats to our kids and citizenry. Don’t tell me you’re one of these guys w nothing better to do than hang out at council meetings and and make the public servants jobs miserable ? Or worse, a wannabee council member. OMG. In that case, stand up so we know who are you are come election time.
1) I have no delusions of power and no ambition to serve on Council.
2) I have been to less than a handful of Council meetings over the past decade and have never spoken publicly at them.
3) I work in technology, personally know individuals and organizations working in cyber security in defensive and offensive capacities for private organizations. I have witnessed live attacks on corporate assets as well as the defensive countermeasures deployed against those attacks.
4) I have a family and am fully aware of the threats they face every day.
5) I pay real estate taxes and use very few incremental city resources.
I hope I answered your questions to your satisfaction. If you have more, I will do my best to reply. Now, would you care to unwind the 1,000 word damage I did to your brain by educating us on the actual, real threats we West U citizens need to address? Thanks.
I am all in.
Another option would be to reduce the number of entry/exit points. While this may cause some changes to traffic patterns in the city, a traffic study could be done to determine the potential impact.
Very good idea!
Reducing the number of entry/exit points is an excellent idea. The city closed the Cason/Kirby entry more than a decade ago. It has been a positive experience. I would view closing more entries along Kirby as an improvement.
Very good
We need 100 percent. A small price to pay for our safety and that of our children. Thank you Mayor Susan Sample for taking the charge. The crime lately has been frightening
All thanks to liberal Obama and Hillary that you’ve supported Heidi. No borders, no decent jobs for so many Americans, including young African Americans, feds dictating law enforcement to states and localities and threatening to sue them for for race discrimination if they don’t apply a quota to arrests. Now, with heroin epidemics, open borders and unvetted refugees, our children face the threat of terrorism. Yes, we desperately need the cameras 100% thanks to the liberals.
I hope I don’t live within six blocks of you because I’m way more afraid of what’s going on inside your mind than I am of feds, heroin. refugees, and terrorists. Combined! Thanks for the laugh, though :-)
The truth must hurt. And I hope you stay miles away from my children because with all the feel-good, censored, PC kool aid you’re drinking, you wouldn’t recognize a real threat if it was sitting on your porch and bit you in the ___!
This is why you’ve never been invited to sit on my porch. I have seen the enemy….
What went wrong in your life that you fly off the handle so easily? Do you engage with those you disagree with or simply shout at anyone who offends your point of view?
Talking about our children, the “open bathrooms” issue will gain steam in Obama’s 3rd term (aka Hillary). I predict DOJ will become more aggressive and force schools like West U Elementary to adopt open bathrooms as well as the other social lunacy out of Europe these days.