Lyonel Doherty, Times Chronicle
What’s the term . . . don’t flog a dead horse?
Well, Oliver’s unofficial watchdog doesn’t believe CCTV is a dead issue in Canada’s Wine Capital, and he’s determined to keep it that way.
Michael Guthrie, who has surveillance cameras on his own property, said Oliver would benefit a great deal from 15 CCTV devices strategically placed around town.
He’s been trying to convince the municipality to utilize these cameras for but with no luck.
“The council has no horse in this race. They spent, how many decades trying to convince everybody in this town that there was no crime.”
Guthrie said elected officials have a duty to represent the people who put them in office. By the people he’s referring to the nearly 500 signatures who signed a petition favouring surveillance cameras in Oliver.
“Four years ago I spoke to the privacy ministry, I spoke to an attorney in Victoria, and they all told me the same thing: For various reasons, town council and the city will fight you every step of the way and they’re going to use privacy (as the excuse). It’s the only argument they have.”
Guthrie said he views the petition as a mandate for council to act, or at least try.
Town council had considered a small rebate program for people who wanted to install their own cameras, but that didn’t receive approval.
Guthrie said this was basically council providing “toast without the butter.”
The surveillance advocate recalled nightly forays made by criminals in his neighbourhood, where people on bikes with trailers would be riding up and down the street at 2:30 a.m.
Guthrie said while council approved surveillance cameras at the Town Hall and the Public Works yard, it doesn’t appear to want cameras on Main Street or other public areas. Yet there are numerous cameras watching the public at Oliver Parks and Recreation, he pointed out.
Guthrie said he may bring this issue up again at the all-candidates meeting this fall.
As far as privacy goes, Guthrie said privacy in a public space does not exist and there should be no expectation of it.
He noted the system he is advocating is very secure, with much more control than someone taking a video with his or her phone, which occurs all the time in public.
“We don’t have an expectation of privacy, legal or otherwise, unless you’re on your own property.”
“If you use Facebook these days or your email. . . there’s no privacy.”
Oliver citizen Bill Morrison said everybody, behind closed doors, would welcome CCTV and what that would add to the security of the community. But very few would come out and publicly support it.
Morrison and Guthrie agree that cameras would be very beneficial at certain funnel points, such as the top of Fairview Road west and the corner of McKinney Road and Black Sage Road.
“The number of times my wife and I have recorded stuff up that area (Fairview Road) . . . everything from motorcycles and sports goods to travel trailers, you name it.”
Guthrie said the RCMP are continually asking the public for surveillance video to help solve crimes.
He said the plan is to put this issue before council, independent of the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Committee.
Morrison said the focus is not to infringe on anyone’s privacy. “What we are hoping to do is improve their safety and security, period. That’s what it will do.”
Guthrie pointed to the City of Penticton, which gave the Downtown Penticton Association (DPA) a grant to install five cameras in key areas. These cameras can even communicate with trespassers, telling them to move on if necessary.
Guthrie said he would like to see the same collaboration between the Town of Oliver and the local business association.
Petra Veintimilla from the Oliver Business Association could not be reached for comment. Nor could Lynn Allin from the Penticton association.
But Guthrie said Allin told him that she was so happy with the pilot project because “crime is non-existent” in three areas they targeted.
Guthrie said they would like to conduct a poll in Oliver to get feedback from residents. If there is no interest, they will drop the idea, he stated.
Oliver Mayor Martin Johansen said any support he would have for CCTV cameras would be contingent upon a favourable cost/benefit analysis.
“There would have to be a tangible benefit to the community to justify the cost of installation, operation, maintenance, monitoring and administration of the camera network.”
The mayor said the privacy issue is a real concern for municipalities. He also noted the administrative workload associated with it can be daunting.
He said the City of Penticton has avoided the privacy issue by the contract with the DPA to run the CCTV project to address high crime and vandalism in the downtown core.
Johansen said he has requested the DPA to present the results of the pilot at the next crime prevention meeting.
Area C director Rick Knodel said he strongly supports CCTV in aiding the police in their investigations. But unless the punishment fits the crime, it’s a moot point, he added, especially if someone who commits a crime gets no more penalty than a person who contravenes a bylaw.
Knodel said he could see a camera being effective in the upper Fairview Road area heading to Cawston. He suggested finding a landowner who would host a camera.
Knodel said he agrees there is no expectation of privacy on a public road. Sooner or later you have to make a choice on privacy or security, the director said.
“I haven’t met anyone who said no (to cameras) . . . I’m hearing a lot of people who say it’s time, we’ve got to do something.”
Diane Vaykovich, the Town’s corporate officer, said they just installed the cameras at Town Hall and Public Works, so it is too soon to show any results. “There have not been any incidents that required any follow-up investigation.”
Vaykovich said installing cameras on Town-owned properties is less cumbersome than public property. “Placement in general locations as a tool to deter crime is not supported by the Privacy Commissioner,” she pointed out.
