Submitted by barbara paolucci, Nov 6, 2006 12:22

The need is great - even at so called low crime rate buildilngs. I know, I live in one.

With the cameras in place you would be able to get the violent criminals, the drug dealers and those who train their pit bulls to kill/fight out of the projects and that's what is sorely needed.

Having this proposal pass does not mean the worst developments would have to wait for the cameras - as I understand it - many of the worst developments already have camera systems in place - but probably at a minimum.

Why not compromise and equip buildings from both ends of the crime stats list - i.e. equip one from the least crime buidings list and one from the worst at the same time. Solves that problem in an Abraham like way doesn't it.

Elevators, halls and entrance ways as well as paths should have cameras and anything less leaves tenants at risk.

As to the cost complaint by NYCHA - well, NYC and NYS ended up with some hefty surpluses - and still cut NYCHA funding - so it's not a matter of not having the money - it's a matter of whether the powers that be are willing to do the right thing or not.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.