Smile

There have been recent reports of the Portland City Council voting to mandate that a private business put up cameras pointed at public property, at the expense of not only the owner of the establishment, but also of the privacy of Portlanders.

As reported in the Portland Forecaster and then in the Portland Press Herald, the news of the Council’s efforts at curbing crime in the Bayside neighborhood of Portland should be a wake-up call to all Portlanders.  The Council’s decision to hang a liquor license extension on the stipulation that the owner of the establishment pay for, erect, and monitor video cameras sets a very disturbing precedent and should be reconsidered completely and immediately.

Now I’m reasonably sure that you will not see the pages of the Maine Progressive replete with calls for dramatically less regulation or oversight over businesses in the state.  In this case, however, the Council’s clumsy approach at solving a crime problem is not only over-reaching, but poses a clear and present danger to the civil liberties of residents and visitors of the city.

As the articles referenced point out, even the Portland Police Department does not hold the establishment responsible for the ills of the neighborhood.  But scapegoating is easy, especially if you play fast and loose with the facts.  A bar in a working class neighborhood is an easy target.  Couple that with the liquor license extension and you have the ingredients needed for a good old-fashioned blame game, complete with righteous indignation.

There’s a crime problem in Bayside.  Ok, the numbers can corroborate that.  Rather than attacking the problem of crime by taking stock of the climate of the neighborhood and addressing the root causes, the Council will have us smile on candid camera, on public property.  Cameras that will be “monitored” by untrained personnel.  Cameras that will likely just displace crime deeper into the neighborhood.  Cameras that Councilors can ignorantly point to as a good faith effort to clean up a neighborhood.  This is both lazy, short-sighted, and unfairly targets an area where ore most vulnerable populations live and as served by social services.

Further, one cannot help but think of the other repercussions of such public policy.  Merely installing cameras may very well displace, not reduce, crime.  The same neighbors that demonize the establishment in questions may get much more than they bargained for with this impotent approach.  Also, do people get into mischief and congregate in front of other establishments in the city, perhaps in more affluent neighborhoods?  If the answer is yes, should we advocate for cameras on those streets too? 

Crime and poverty should be addressed in a comprehensive way.  We won’t solve this problem overnight, but what would a short wish list look like?  More job training opportunities?  More efforts at keeping kids in school, and helping their parents and caregivers make positive choices?  More opportunities for young men and women to spend their time productively?  More drug and alcohol prevention programs at an early age?  This takes time, commitment, money, community engagement, and a strong will to avoid the politically expedient.  The mounting of cameras peeping down public streets and walkways isn’t the answer.

The Council would be wise to re-think their decision in this case.  In the interim, be sure to let the Council know that their band-aid approach is not acceptable.