One thing to remember about video surveillance. The police will be aware of those cameras watching and therefore perhaps inhibited in how rough they treat civilians.
As to location, the city is probably PARANOID about stuff happening downtown that might persuade business to locate elsewhere for greater safety. We have enough problems with the lower taxes in the suburbs. I imagine the gross quantity of crimes down there is due to a ton of petty crimes that happen just due to the daytime density of population. As to expense, are the systems that cost so much the MOST EXPENSIVE TECHNOLOGY? When I worked at the contractor that processed for the Lotto America here, they monitored a remote computer room using a webcam. Is it possible with the cheapness of webcams, that standard video cameras are not the attractive option for surveillance? Plus, the webcams can be hidden so much more easily. Maybe a standard surveillance camera would be a better deterrrent, but if you want to actually gather evidence, I'd think a webcam would be preferrable. Such as for neighborhood activists who want to convince the city to put in a light, stop sign, or to get squad cars to come around. Jim Mork Cooper Neighborhood Longfellow Community Beautiful, Liveable Minneapolis, My Home Town TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
