Pittsfield Township considering purchase of 6 security cameras
Pittsfield Township could soon have security cameras like these in Ypsilanti Township.
AnnArbor.com file photo
The Pittsfield Township Board of Trustees will consider purchasing six security cameras at its regular meeting Wednesday.
The cameras would first be installed on township properties in places like parks, parking lots and outside of restrooms, but could eventually be included at three apartment complexes, said Public Safety Director Matt Harshberger.
In the case of the restrooms, there have been problems with things like vandalism and graffiti, Harshberger said.
The township is also currently in negotiations with real estate company McKinley, Inc. about installing cameras near exits and entrances at Glencoe Hills, 2201 Glencoe Hills Dr., Evergreen Apartments, 3089 Woodland Hills Dr. and Golfside Lake, 2345 Woodridge Way.
Harshberger said there have been problems at these three complexes in the past.
“This gives us an added opportunity for security,” he said.
Many of the details of about the program have yet to be hashed out. The first step will take place Wednesday night when the board will decide whether to purchase six security cameras, one server with offsite hosting and repair/maintenance service for one year from Camtronics. The total price tag for all of it is $31,667, with $28,500 coming from a state grant the township has been award. Pittsfield would provide 10 percent matching funds for the program.
Harshberger said all six cameras might be used at the township locations or they could be spread around immediately to the apartment complexes depending on the negotiations with McKinley. The township could also acquire more cameras in the future.
The cameras will be useful in not only reviewing crimes that could occurred within their shots, but obtaining suspect and vehicle descriptions and locating missing people, Harshberger said.
The success of the Washtenaw County Sheriff Office's program in Ypsilanti Township's West Willow neighborhood provided inspiration and prompted Pittsfield to look into the cameras, Harshberger added.
The township has consulted with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) about how to place the cameras in places that violate privacy the least.
Harshberger said the township is very much "tuned into those concerns."
The issue is also addressed in the memorandum to the rest of the board from Township Supervisor Mandy Grewal, who is recommending the purchase.
"The Department of Public Safety has been working with the township's attorney and the ACLU to ensure that cameras installed on public property will be used in the least intrusive manner," the memo states, "while allowing for identification of persons and vehicles when necessary."
Grewal could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
John Counts covers cops and courts for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached at johncounts@annarbor.com or you can follow him on Twitter.
Comments
Nicholas Urfe
Thu, Aug 15, 2013 : 2:03 a.m.
Obtaining cameras before you have identified a specific location and justification for their deployment is completely unacceptable. Getting them and then finding a place to stick'em - that's just wrong.
Basic Bob
Thu, Aug 15, 2013 : 10:43 a.m.
I bet Matt Harschberger, Mandy Grewal, and Camtronics all know exactly where they will be installed. Safe to say they will all be in the 48197.
Nicholas Urfe
Thu, Aug 15, 2013 : 2:02 a.m.
If private businesses have crime problems, they should pay for their own cameras. The taxpayers should not subsidize their security needs.
Jon Wax
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 11:35 p.m.
Back when A2 was seeing that wave of in home robberies I said we needed cameras at all the highway entrances for the exact same reason: you can get some data on who is coming and going, in what car and when. Cameras are legit and their use should be national at this point. Thug life is over. Peace Wax
An Arborigine
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 10:50 p.m.
Your Pittsfield business sells them a lot cheaper than $30K
whale11
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 7:45 p.m.
I was thinking of moving to Lexington Club retirement community on Golfside, but I see from the maps the bad guys are moving even further west, past Lexington Club. I don't want to be mugged in a parking lot when I visit Lexington Club. Cameras are a good idea.
ArthGuinness
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 5:25 p.m.
I'll give them a bit of credit for contacting the ACLU first. No, I don't like the idea of my every movement being observed, nor do I buy the idea that "I have nothing to worry about if I'm not doing anything wrong" (an easily destroyed argument). But for certain high-crime locations, I think the balance between privacy and safety might weigh in the direction of surveillance.
Jake C
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 7:45 p.m.
Most sensible comment so far
joech
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 4:19 p.m.
Ummmm, why should Pittsfield Township be responsible to supply security cameras to 3 private apartment complexes? Last I heard, Glencoe Hills Drive was no longer even a public road. If McKinley has a problem at 3 of its complexes, perhaps it should gate the entrances (like they talked about at Glencoe approximately 10 years ago), and handle the problem themselves. News like this is a big black eye for McKinley. I'd think they'd like to keep this quiet.
Jon Wax
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 11:41 p.m.
1. they would just up the cost of rent. 2. try not to use "black" in connotation to negativity. "big black eye" is a bit of a reach, but still... no reason to subconciously keep the association going at this point. let's not use color to denote positive, negative, yeah? Peace Wax
joech
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 9:23 p.m.
I see your points, Angry Moderate and umylulz. However, I think McKinley should be footing the bill for their own cameras. They're the ones who allow criminals to live on (or visit) their property, so they should be the ones paying for the problems caused. It would be another story if the crimes were occurring on the streets near their properties. Frankly, they should have put cameras up and gated the entrances 15 years ago after that young lady was shot to death at Glencoe.
umylulz
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 7:10 p.m.
Golfside Lake is gated. A few months back, that didn't stop some (still) unknown assailant from riding his bike into the complex, following a woman who was walking home from the bus stop on Washtenaw, robbing her, attempting to rape her, and ultimately shooting her in the head, leaving her for dead. With a camera setup, there may have been a visual on the "suspect," which might get him off the streets and possibly out of my community. As far as I'm aware, it's still an open case. I know cameras don't necessarily stop crime, and images are often grainy or offer a vague shot of suspects, but I'd rather have that than nothing.
Angry Moderate
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 6:10 p.m.
Supplying cameras will save the Township money if it deters crime and reduces the number of trips they have to make to Glencoe Hills.
Goober
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 3:39 p.m.
I guess they have been listening to Obama and the NSA again. Go figure!
Basic Bob
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 4:26 p.m.
They were listening to the camera peddler. He is the only one that benefits.
Plubius
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 2:22 p.m.
They that would give up essential freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security - Benjamin Franklin
Jon Wax
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 11:39 p.m.
"What'd you say about my momma??!" O dogg. Menace to Society. Ben woulda had a CPL by now. Peace Wax
ArthGuinness
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 5:37 p.m.
I need an edit function because I'm a failure at previewing. "just pointing" not "joining pointed".
ArthGuinness
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 5:36 p.m.
Uh, "just" not "joining" in that last paragraph.
ArthGuinness
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 5:36 p.m.
Plubius - in this case the balance is between privacy and security, not freedom and security. Furthermore, it is privacy in a public place that we are talking about, as NSider pointed out. But don't mistake me for somebody who thinks the government can do no wrong. I do have problems with the TSA (who clearly violate both freedom and privacy with very little impact on security), and with the NSA (who only violate privacy, with unknown impact on security). And its true that you have *some* legally-protected expectation of privacy even in a public place, for example a conversation in a park when you think nobody else is around. I guess I'm joining pointed out that a video of where you've been walking around is not interfering with any protected freedom.
FredMax
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 3:40 p.m.
Plubius: any specifics you can give on how the term "essential freedoms" applies in the particular case? "Any fool can know. The point is to understand." -Albert Einstein
NSider
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 2:57 p.m.
Tell Ben he still has his freedom, freedom of expression, freedom to assemble, freedom to pass through public spaces without written permits, even the freedom to bear arms where legally permitted, but when in public the public has the right to know what anyone / everyone is doing. When you are no longer permitted on the street without your pass, then there is a problem. (and back in old Ben's day, in the UK one had to have written permission to leave the estate that one lived on. Freedom of passage was not guaranteed.)
NSider
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 1:45 p.m.
How does a camera, in public, taking pictures of a public location, violate ANYONE's privacy? I just have to think that if you are willing to be out in public, and you go out into public areas, you must expect that you are out in public? Or is that too simple for anyone to get?
Angry Moderate
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 2:18 p.m.
The people arrested from the videos might have a different racial makeup than the rest of the city. We need to hire some consultants to address this "surveillance gap."
tammrm
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 1:06 p.m.
What is wrong with our society that some people feel they can terrorize, murder, rape, and rob at will? Steal other people's belongings? Sell life-ruining illegal drugs? Or just vandalize property? Is it Godlessness? Is it just basic human greed? I too don't want to live in a police state, but people have a right to feel safe and secure in themselves and their property.
CarsonH
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 12:40 p.m.
If it helps deter crime and makes it safer to use parks, I'm all for it. Might help solve crimes too (rampant in apartments). Seems well thought out. I've had enough of the graffiti and vandalism. Too many taggers running around.
Jon Wax
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 11:37 p.m.
graffiti is not the same as tagging. graffiti artists are legit. most graffiti artists know where and where not to work. taggers are a buncha wanna biebers who need a good spanking. case in point: our resident hack Peace Wax
WalkingJoe
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 12:30 p.m.
Let's see, I don't buy or sell drugs, I don't attack and rob people, I don't vandalize or write graffiti on other peoples property. I guess that's why I don't worry about security cameras.
Jon Wax
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 11:36 p.m.
solitude: new Xbox beat ya to it!! Peace Wax
Homeland Conspiracy
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 8:49 p.m.
That's next
Solitude
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 6:52 p.m.
Exactly. We're talking about public places here, not people's living rooms.
Homeland Conspiracy
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 12:13 p.m.
One Nation Under Surveillance
trespass
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 12:02 p.m.
This is just the beginning. We will have cameras everywhere. They are testing the waters and if the public doesn't protest because the cameras are "free", then they will buy more and more cameras.
Solitude
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 6:49 p.m.
So what if they do? What's the difference between a camera pointed at a park bench and an officer standing there watching a park bench? I hope they put a camera on every street corner and in every park. Maybe then the lowlifes, the pedophiles and the thieving junkies will think twice, and maybe the ones who don't will be caught more quickly and easily.
Evergreen
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 11:08 a.m.
I don't have a problem with cameras if it reduces crime. If the crime just moves to a different location in the area, nothing accomplished. And how are the cameras used is also important. If someone sits there and monitors, it does sound invasive. If it's used to gather incriminating evidence and reduce the number of bad guys then why not. But then that means the crime has already happened and was not prevented? Even more effective than cameras would be to overhaul the legal system and make it effective!
Jake C
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 7:03 p.m.
Good points, except we also need to consider what's practical for a township to actually accomplish. What's more likely -- a complete overhaul of our legal system, or spending a few grand on security cameras to help solve a few extra crimes per year?
Basic Bob
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 10:32 a.m.
I disagree with the township installing surveillance cameras at these properties. This is not the vision of a police state I thought I lived in. I strongly disagree with the township strong-arming McKinley into purchasing three more cameras, who will receive no state law enforcement grants and most certainly pass the cost along to the residents. I hope some of the township trustees speak out on behalf of the rights of township residents on this issue. The DPS Director and Township Supervisor seem more concerned about avoiding another federal lawsuit than what people in the township want or need. Have they put cameras at the high school to help the police identify heroin dealers? Putting a police officer on site has not made an impact.
Solitude
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 7:18 p.m.
"Citizens," not "citizen's"
Solitude
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 6:46 p.m.
Citizen's have no right to privacy in public places. What "rights" need to be defended here?
LaMusica
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 4:48 p.m.
As a former resident of a McKinley property (one which saw shootings, robberies, and false imprisonments), I would very much have liked to have cameras.
Angry Moderate
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 1:07 p.m.
As a former McKinley resident, cameras might have saved me money. Maybe my bicycle (and all of my neighbors' catalytic converters) wouldn't have been stolen.
Gorc
Wed, Aug 14, 2013 : 11:57 a.m.
What makes you beleive the township is strong arming McKinley?