**Correction appended**
Columbia residents and MU students alike will soon be monitored by an increased number of security cameras while they wander around, eat and shop downtown. Voters initially approved the plan in an April 2010 election and 16 months later, eight cameras have been installed in four locations downtown.
Columbia attorney and Missouri Civil Liberties Union spokesman Dan Viets said these cameras will be used to monitor pedestrians via a live-stream. Viets said the city went back on its earlier promise during last year’s campaign that the cameras would not be monitored in real time.
“The cameras simply do not reduce crime, they do not deter crime, and they don’t solve crime except in very rare situations,” Viets said. “A lot of people would find it objectionable to be under surveillance just because they’re downtown. They’re doing exactly what they said they would not do. They lied to the public and they lied to the voters.”
Keep Columbia Safe, a local grassroots community organization created in hopes of preventing off-campus crime, originally petitioned for the cameras. The issue first received significant media attention in 2009 when local resident Karen Taylor began to advocate for an increase in security cameras downtown. After Taylor’s son Adam was robbed and beaten near the Cherry Street parking garage, she decided to take action. Keep Columbia Safe became Taylor’s brainchild and she has worked for the past three years to increase the safety of local residents and college students.
“I’m very excited about it,” she said. “My family and I were both behind that initiative and very supportive of the downtown safety cameras. We know for a fact that they were instrumental in solving the case my son was involved in and feel that that they are very beneficial to the community.”
The cameras were originally removed from downtown in April 2009. Three months later, Taylor’s son was attacked.
“We want downtown Columbia to be a safe place for everyone in the community to enjoy, and we think the cameras will help achieve that goal,” Taylor said.
According to the Keep Columbia Safe’s website, due to the security cameras, within six hours of watching the video local police were able to identify and arrest the attackers.
“We’re not necessarily (looking to add new cameras),” Taylor said. “We’re going to wait and see the effectiveness.”
According to the Columbia city budget, the new cameras cost $25,000 to install. A fiber optic cable running from city hall to each camera will help keep each device within the city stay connected.
Footage from each camera will be stored and held by the city of Columbia for 60 days following the filming under the guidelines of Missouri’s Sunshine Law. The city is currently placing the cameras in plain sight in hopes of having the devices blend in to the downtown environment.
“The cameras are just a waste of money,” Viets said. “They mislead the public into thinking that they’re safer but the reality is that the cameras simply don’t contribute in any meaningful way to reducing crime or making neighborhoods safer.”
Taylor said it wasn’t her organization’s goal to pervade downtown, but to aid law enforcement.
“It wasn’t our goal to infiltrate downtown but if the law enforcement feels a need I would certainly entertain that discussion with them,” Taylor said. “Our goal was to provide another tool to aid law enforcement, and so we will really rely on them and their feedback to know if more cameras are necessary or not.”
The new security cameras have faced negative feedback from another local political action committee, Keep Columbia Free. At a recent city council meeting, committee treasurer Mitch Richards addressed the council about his issues regarding the increase in security cameras. Among his complaints, Richards said that one of the new cameras points at the Blue Fugue, a gathering place for civil liberties groups who oppose the cameras.
“I would feel a little bit like I was in 1984, kind of like Big Brother is watching,” freshman Joel Dalton said. “Since I know about (the purpose) of the cameras, it’s less of a big deal.”
As a student, Dalton said that the cameras wouldn’t bother him, as long as they are being used for the right reasons.
“I feel like both sides are valid,” Dalton said. “People’s safety is really important. If there have been known muggings, yes that’s a responsible thing for the government to do, if there hasn’t been a threat in the area then (the cameras) are not OK.”
When the cameras were voted on in April 2010, the first ward, the one encompassing downtown Columbia, voted against them. The remaining wards, however, did vote in favor of installing the cameras.
**Correction appended:** We originally ran that Dan Viets’ title is the city of Columbia’s attorney. Viets is not only the city’s attorney, but also the spokesperson for the Missouri Civil Liberties Union. Also, instead of the phrase, “Among his complaints, Richards said that one of the new cameras points at the Blue Fugue, a popular location for demonstrations and protests,” we should have said the Blue Fugue is a gathering place for civil liberties groups who oppose the cameras.
