Davenport Council: Skybridge will not get cameras, for now -QCTimes last week
I don't see why this is even a debate. The debate should be why they weren't included in the original plan. We built a beautiful glass structure, open to the public 24/7.... whatever could go wrong with that? Most public places have security cameras to make the police department's job easier when something happens. I believe the RiverCenter has cameras, and probably the new library too. You can't sneeze in Chicago without it being recorded, although I believe that city provides a good example of cameras going too far. Practically every retail store has cameras, and almost none of them are monitored around the clock.
I mention this because apparently the problem with cameras is they won't be monitored 24/7. Does this mean that Keith and the others would have approved of it if we paid someone $6 an hour times 8760 hours a year (more than $50,000) to monitor them? I like his volunteer idea, and there's no reason not to implement that as well, but I doubt we'll ever get 24/7's worth of volunteers. A better idea would be an actual Skybridge patrol, much like the VIPs occasionally do. Just the presence of witnesses would prevent a lot of stuff from happening.
In the mean time cameras can serve as our witnesses, and allow more of the vandals to be caught and prosecuted. Hopefully the council reconsiders and installs the cameras. It seems like common sense, but as we all know... that's no indicator of what this council will do.