South-core residents get candid about cameras

The city’s Eye on the Street program received praise for protecting people and property at a recent city council meeting, but many who frequent the area say the cameras don’t help them feel any safer.

City council reviewed the 2009 statistics at a council meeting on Monday, July 26. At the meeting Charles Campbelle, acting general manager of Transportation and Works, told council the program is valuable because it provides visual coverage in certain areas 24-hours a day.

But some residents are skeptical, and say they don’t see the program’s value.

"When I was a kid, they always had police on the beat," said 60-year-old Allan Bobinski, a Westfort resident who was walking through the Victoriaville area on a sunny Monday afternoon.

"They used to have them all over town. I don’t know about this new stuff (video surveillance), but when you had police walking the beat you had eye contact and people felt better and safer. What can cameras catch? You can catch something on a camera, but how can you catch the person?"

Bobinski said he still spots local police on foot patrols, but not nearly as many as he used to see and not nearly enough to make people in the area feel safe.

Waiting for a bus in front of city hall, 17-year-old Alex Andrea Welsh echoed Bobinksi’s concerns.

"How fast can they get to us if they see something happening?" she asked. "How often are they monitoring?"

Alex said she would feel safer if she saw police patrolling more often in the areas where the Eye on the Street is now set up. The patrols wouldn’t have to be exclusively on foot. More patrol vehicles driving up and down the streets would go a long way, she added.

While the teen said she doubted the program works at preventing crime, she did admit that it is likely an important tool for police after a crime takes place.

Sitting on a bench and waiting for a bus alone midday Monday, Alex said she feels safe in the city’s south side when the sun is up. At night time it's a different story.

"At night I’m so scared I can’t even walk the streets," she said. "In Port Arthur (I feel safe enough to be out at night), but not down here."

Many other area residents who spoke to tbnewswatch.com Monday said they also didn’t believe the program worked toward making the area safer. Nearly everyone who shared an opinion said they would prefer more police officers patrolling the area than having the surveillance program.

That feeling, however, is not unanimous.

"A camera can always be there, but an officer can’t," said 55-year-old Randy Hunt. "It will cost a lot more money to put more officers on the street than it would to put another camera on a pole."

The reality is that crimes can be committed without witnesses around. If there’s a camera in the area than the police don’t need a witness because they have the incident on tape, Hunt said.

Thunder Bay isn’t the only city that uses video surveillance in an effort to thwart crime in downtown areas. Many cities across North America and parts of Europe have embraced the use of cameras to fight crime on public streets.

Liberty, a civil liberties group based in Europe, told Time magazine in 2008 that it estimates the UK makes use of nearly 4.2 million crime-fighting cameras. The group also believes that the average person living and working in London, England is captured on camera 300 times a day.

"It’s good to have (Eye on the Street) anywhere in Thunder Bay," Hunt said. "That’s how they catch people in major cities. They have no witnesses, so they get them on tape."

Thunder Bay’s program, which was launched in 2005, had all 16 of its cameras operating in 2009.

Three of those cameras have since been removed following the decommissioning of the Brodie Street bus terminal.