Sophie Maxwell - of crime and cameras
"We're in a state of emergency," Maxwell said. "The mayor should call the chief, the district attorney, the supervisors from the affected districts together to strategize."
"San Francisco has to take responsibility. We have to do something. We've not done enough."
"If we don't step forward, these killers are going to continue to control the city," Maxwell said. "They'll continue to kill women and babies. I don't know what the police are doing." [Chronicle]
An article in The Examiner, further echoes that our supervisor is unaware of what's being done to stem crime:
“When I go out, people say, ‘What are you doing about crime?’ - I don’t know what’s going on because there’s no real dialogue,” she said. “The mayor and everybody need to bring us in … He should not feel the burden himself. We all need to be at the table, so we can all be held accountable, me included. Either you make me a part of it or you tell people that I’m not.” [The Examiner 10/16/05]
When I asked Supervisor Maxwell over the weekend what her stance was on surveillance cameras (since Mayor Newsom's pilot program in the Western Addition appears to be successful) she said she was opposed to them, since she thought they would make "the police lazy." Sophie seems somewhat disconnected with her constituents, as residents of Bayview recently ranked cameras second on a list of 25 things they wanted to combat crime in the short term. [Examiner 10/12/05]
Contrast Sophie's view on surveillance cameras to that of Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi:
"I don't think we should look at these cameras as a replacement for effective community policing,'' Mirkarimi said. However, he said, they seem to have helped deter crime in other cities and may have merit in San Francisco as well.
"We're a community under siege,'' he said. [Chronicle 6/30/05]
I'm really curious to hear what Sophie thinks is a viable solution, as cameras seem to have been successful in other cities in gathering evidence for prosecution and deterring crime. Mayor Newsom has expressed interest in expanding cameras in the city (with the blessing of local residents), and I think it's something certainly worth considering for the crime hot spots in our neighborhood.
Sources:
• Police ask public for help in finding shooting suspect [Chronicle]
• Crime wave leaves supes angry, frustrated [Examiner]
• Western Addition safer since cameras installed [Examiner]
• Cameras to fight crime - Round-the-clock surveillance outside housing project [Chronicle]
2 Comments:
I'm just echoing you here Mike, but personally I'm all for surveillance cameras in hotspots. I don't quite understand the notion that it would make police "lazy" - the fact of the matter is, lazy or not, they're an extra tool that can be used enroute to prosecution.
There are clearly areas of the Hill that are regular targets of vandalism and car break-ins, if the messages on the forum are any indication.
At nite, the building I'm in is swathed in streetside light as well as surveillance cameras on all corners, and I have to believe that has something to do with the fact that I haven't seen broken class on this particular block in the three months that I've lived here.
Finally, now that I'm commuting to/from work on bike, I am pretty astonished to see how many areas of the hill are severely underlit after hours. I can think of several blocks that are overgrown with shrubbery and shrouded in absolute & unsafe darkness.
i'm in total agreement as well. cameras are a good deterent as well as a tool for the police. when i check out the police blotter, every other entry ends with "the officers searched the area to no avail." well, with the cameras let's hope the entries will always end with "with the help of surveillance footages the officers were able to locate the suspect within hours of the crime."
Post a Comment
<< Home