by Christiaan Hart-Nibrig
Charlie Smithgall had no organized campaign activities the day before the November 3rd Lancaster city mayoral election, but he was still out talking to voters around the city.
NewsLanc was interested in how the former two-term mayor viewed the controversial Lancaster Safety Community Coalition, and its increasing number of cameras throughout the city. We tracked the former two-term mayor down by cell phone, and Smithgall was his usual candid self.
“It [safety commission] started during my administration, after 9/11,” said Smithgall. “Everyone was talking about security. I called a meeting with a bunch of business owners who would give permission for the cameras to be placed on their property.”
“But it was a different animal than what it is today,” continued Smithgall. “I don’t believe we [the city] gave the commission any money, if we did, it was a pittance. There was just one camera and we soon discovered the law of unintended consequences. The camera was at Lime and King, where a lot of drug dealing was taking place, and what we found is that after installing the camera, the drug dealers just went up the block to Musser Park. I think the camera caught one traffic violation.”
Today, there are 165 cameras throughout the city, on utility poles, traffic signals, lampposts, all over Lancaster.
Smithgall is tepid in his assessment of the Safety Commission.
“I think it needs a tuneup,” he says bluntly of the private, non-profit organization’s work founded by the Lancaster Alliance. “I don’t know anything about the salaries, but the problem seems to be management.”
For example?
“There needs to be someone watching the cameras at all times, and there needs to be someone watching the ‘watcher,’ making sure that person is doing what he is supposed to do. From what I understand, that is not happening.”
“Also,” continued Smithgall, “I always believed it should be private. I didn’t want the people to think we were ‘Big Brother.’ I thought they [the cameras] should be on private property, keeping the government out of it.”
Funding for the cameras and the Commission’s staff comes from public and private sources, including grants from the city and county governments. On the Commission’s unpaid board of directors are: representatives from the city police and fire departments, city residents, community organizations, the Mayor and District Attorney’s office.
Since implementation of the camera surveillance system, Lancaster’s crime rate has ‘risen’ to among the state’s highest.
Sources for the claim that Lancaster’s crime rate has risen? I thought they were having the opposite effect. One question is if the cameras deter crime in general. Another question is whether the cameras are helping apprehend more of those who do commit crimes, whatever that number is. There are other cities such as Wilmington that have had a lot of success with cameras.
Okay… so the last line appears somewhat inflammatory, designed to get a “rise,” but I’ll bite. Don’t think the cameras are the reason for the rise in crime rates. Some more realistic influencers might be: Higher unemployment rates, change in police commissioner and the resulting change in policing strategies, crackdowns in neighboring cities driving the problem to our doorstep, etc. I am not stating an opinion one way or the other concerning the cameras viability or necessity. I am merely pointing out that any evaluation of the city’s crime rate needs to address the entire complexity of the issue and slinging mud by posting such a statement connecting camera’s and crime rate is disingenuous at best.