| Author |
Message |
    
joeltfk
Citizen
Username: Joeltfk
Post Number: 13
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 12:55 pm: |     |
It was recommended I post this here...
A message to my community and community leaders:
Few things are more frustrating and deplorable than the graffiti that stains the murals in the tunnels that bookend the train station. No matter how often it gets repainted, some punk defaces it -- and gets away with it. It's time to discuss solutions that involve deterrence, not just clean up. Perhaps this has already been discussed, but here's an idea that I'd be more than happy to help fund (and I think many others would as well):
Nowadays, many schoolbuses have installed videocameras in boxes at the front of the bus for both disciplinary and safety reasons. The camera isn't always on -- it may not even always be in the box at all -- but the kids don't know when it is working and when it is not. I say we install such "videoboxes" in these tunnels. They don't have to be on or checked all the time, because the object is deterrence. A big sign (like the useless NO LOITERING one) next to these cameras should say:
"Defacement of public property is a criminal offense. Video cameras have been installed to protect this area. Anyone caught defacing the walls, entrances, signs, or any other part of this tunnel with any markers, paints, signs or other instruments will be subject to punishment and fine. Please respect our community."
What do you think? I certainly don't consider this an infringement on anyone's first ammendment rights (!), and am sure residents would be willing to support this financially! I can be reached at joel_schwartzberg@timeinc.com |
mfpark
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 6
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 8:27 am: | |
I agree that the graffiti is disgusting, but installing sham cameras will open the Town to liability. There are several court cases where parking garage owners installed false cameras, a rape occurred in the garage, and the owners were successfully sued. The prevailing argument was that the false cameras created a presumption of security.
So, the cameras need to be active and tied to a video machine and/or live monitor (I recommend a machine).
The cameras could} be tied to a video machine that records the proceedings, which will allow the tapes to be reviewed at a later date to assist the police in apprehending the culprits. And the signs posted need to make it clear that the video cameras are not necessarily under live surveillance at all times.
|
Timmeh
Citizen
Username: Timmeh
Post Number: 669
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 10:52 am: | |
I think the solution is personal responsibility.
Timmeh! |
joeltfk
Citizen
Username: Joeltfk
Post Number: 15
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 11:17 am: | |
Can anyone recommend how we can draft an official proposal? |
Steven Brent
Citizen
Username: Sbrent
Post Number: 216
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 9:30 pm: | |
Instead of spamming ourselves, why don't we all meet up over at
/discus/messages/10210/19481.html?1059014257
(The other thread Joel started) --
It's well under way (the discussion that is!)
Please pardon our appearance while we renovate. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page