http://www.sfgate.com/…

San Francisco’s 68 controversial anti-crime cameras haven’t deterred criminals from committing assaults, sex offenses or robberies - and they’ve only moved homicides down the block, according to a new report from UC Berkeley.

Researchers found that nonviolent thefts dropped by 22 percent within 100 feet of the cameras, but the devices had no effect on burglaries or car theft. And they’ve had no effect on violent crime.

Mayor Gavin Newsom called the report “conclusively inconclusive” on Thursday but said he still wants to install more cameras around the city because they make residents feel safer.

“When I put the first cameras in, I said, ‘This may only move people around the corner,’ ” he said. “But the community there said, ‘We don’t care, we want our alleyway back.’ No one’s actually had a camera up that they wanted torn down in the community.”

But not all city officials think it’s wise to spend money on public safety measures if the best thing that can be said about them is they have a placebo effect for worried residents.”In their current configuration they are not useful, and they give people a false sense of security, which I think is bad,” said Police Commissioner Joe Alioto-Veronese. He added that previous studies of security cameras in other parts of the country have also shown that they do not deter violent crime.

I’m amazed such logic came out of a police commissioner. You don’t get that very often.

The cameras have contributed to only one arrest nearly two years ago in a city that saw 98 homicides last year, a 12-year high. The video is choppy, and police aren’t allowed to watch video in real-time or maneuver the cameras to get a better view of potential crimes.

The only positive deterrent effect was the reduction of larcenies within 100 feet of the cameras. No other crimes were affected - except for homicides, which had an interesting pattern.

Murders went down within 250 feet of the cameras, but the reduction was completely offset by an increase 250 to 500 feet away, suggesting people moved down the block before killing each other.

That stat about the murders is just wonderful. You can be sure that some pols are just going to twist that to push for 100% camera coverage.

Public Defender Jeff Adachi, who has long been a critic of the cameras, said the report is further proof they’re not improving public safety.

He said they’re no substitute for attacking the causes of crime and said money would be better invested in community-based policing, anti-violence projects in schools, and services that help ex-prisoners readjust to life in society so they don’t commit more crimes.

How about looking at why they commit crimes in the first place? How many of those crimes are a result of the black market and prohibitions?

I like some of the comments:

newcastle wrote:

Actually fatsengalla - they DO work - I have first hand experience of this from the UK…… BUT and it’s a big one… THEY HAVE TO BE USED PROPERLY, which appears to be the problem, and not have their use hampered by bogus claims about privacy and other such rubbish.

froggy_08 wrote:

The fact that the cameras are stopping crime in the areas in which they are located indicates that, contrary to the story’s headline, they are working. The big problem with the way SF is using the cameras is that they are much too visible, the police are not allowed to view them or change their direction which is idiotic and there aren’t enough of them. The idea that cameras that are in public places somehow violate ones right to privacy is madness. How about all the cameras in banks, stores and other public places?

I know… we should put cameras in newcastle’s home just in case he commits a crime. Those UK cameras worked so well in helping stop those guys who blew up those buses a few years back. Oh and catching that Brazilian terrorist plumber the London police decided needed bullets implanted in his skull. Same goes for froggy_08. Obviously since people come and go in their home it’s a “public” place. At least one pointed into the yard. It’s not like banks and stores are private property or anything and those in their are volunteering to be seen on camera and pay for their operation.

Really what we should do is a setup a network of cameras which cover every inch of land which a crime could be committed on. We link them all up to high powered computer farms which use facial and movement recognition software to track every single object in the cameras view. We feed that into a giant database which is analyzed in realtime for suspicious individuals and alert the police. It can watch what you get at the store or what food you’ve purchased and if anything bought could be used for malisious actions you will be flagged. If you have ingested too many calories or fatty foods the NHS will be alerted and you’ll receive a fine for possibly costing the government more than your share of healthcare costs.

At some point criminals will just start wearing clothing with surface mount IR LEDs on them which will blind the cameras.

http://www.kcbs.com/…

For years, the idea of taxing soda to beat back obesity has been tossed around in medical circles. But now, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is proposing a tax on beverages high in fructose corn syrup.

Newsom says obesity accounts for tens of millions of dollars in city health care costs. He cites a recent San Francisco Health Department survey that found nearly a quarter of the city’s 5th, 7th and 9th graders were overweight and that high sugar drinks make up a tenth of a kid’s daily calorie count.

Newsom reportedly wants all big box retailers and chain drug stores to pay into his new “Shape up San Francisco” program, which started this past summer with a walking regimen.

This comes as the state of California is considering slapping caffeine-infused sodas, and energy drinks with warning labels, saying consumption can contribute to diabetes.

This isn’t about obesity. They outright admit it’s about money. They don’t want to or can’t continue to mandate required city health care if the costs keep rising. Lets look at the entirety of this situation. The federal government steals your money through income taxation. They use some of that money to subsidize the corn industry and the fructose corn syrup industry in particular. In addition to that there are import quotas and tariffs on sugar. Those force the domestic price of sugar to more than twice the world price and lowers the cost of high-fructose corn syrup. According to Wikipedia Coca-Cola uses sugar internationally but HFCS domestically. Some believe that HFCS has greater health risks than sucrose. So here we have you paying for a possibly dangerous sweetener to be used in food which San Fran would like to then tax you for consuming. They want to tax you at the cash register so they don’t have to tax everyone else for your greater use of the mandatory health system. Of course the soda companies have something to say about this.

“It makes no sense to single out any one single cause of obesity, which is a complex problem,” said Kevin Keane, a senior vice president of the American Beverage Association, the trade group for $105-billion-a-year nonalcoholic beverage industry.

Keane said that if Newsom really wanted to fight the fat, he would take on computer and video game companies, which Keane said lured children inside when they should “be outside burning calories.”

Another person passes the blame. Lets see who has more sway in the California and San Francisco government: the beverage or videogame companies. Will they start placing “no fatties” taxes on Pepsi or Nintendo? Why can’t these people place blame on those who cause the obesity? The fat asses who eat and drink these things in excess and in the case of children their parents. Why not be honest and say that the reason they want to implement this tax is because people don’t want to actually pay for the socialist single payer health system pipedream they claim they want?

The soda proposal will be introduced to the Board of Supervisors early next year, Ballard said, and would affect only large retailers, not mom-and-pop stores. As for levies on other child-friendly delicacies, Ballard added, “The mayor has no intention of imposing a fee on pizza.”

Yet. Not as if the pizza is worth eating in San Fran.