Developers may now be forced to finance new police surveillance cameras in Aberdeen.
Under a measure passed 4-1 by the Aberdeen City Council, the city could require developers of any new community to pay for the installation and maintenance of security cameras as part of an effort to reduce crime.
Cameras can cost more than $5,000 each, said Sheriff Jesse Bane, who is researching whether to put cameras elsewhere in the county.
Developers say the vaguely worded ordinance could easily be abused.
The city of Aberdeen spent $125,000 on cameras and a new surveillance room this year, said Councilwoman Ruth Elliott. The city has two cameras ? one on at 100 East Bel Air Ave. and another at Washington and Edmund.
Aberdeen Police Chief Randy Rudy said the cameras have reduced calls for service.
Rudy said the cameras would help protect a continually growing population.
“We felt we needed a mechanism if we got into a situation where we felt there needed to be cameras ,and the developer felt otherwise,” Rudy said.
Susan Stroud, director of government affairs for the Homebuilders Association of Maryland, worries about the vague wording of the ordinance. “I could see this ordinance being abused by an overzealous police department,” Stroud said. “The devil?s in the details, and there is not much in this ordinance.”
Matthew L. Kimball, a Baltimore real estate attorney, said requiring developers to pay for cameras would be legal. He said the camera legislation would be considered an “exaction,” which is a zoning tool used by municipalities to ease the burden of development of public services.
But Kimball said questions remain: Who would carry insurance for the equipment? Which party will pay for the electricity to support the equipment? Are there legitimate privacy concerns for security cameras operated by the police on private property?
“The legislation seems to pose more questions than it answers,” Kimball said.
Six months after having a camera placed in their neighborhood, the citizens of Swan Meadows say they?ve seen improvements.
“People are coming out of their houses more, and it?s starting to feel like a real community,” Red Costa said. “I truly feel these cameras help to reduce crime and things have gotten so much better.”
Neighbor Mike Noon agreed.
“It has kept the drug dealers away,” Noon said.
Despite the apparent public safety benefits, Elliott said she voted against the ordinance because she worried about the cameras being used to invade people?s privacy.
“I don?t believe the procedures and policy are in place to protect the innocent,” Elliott said.
