October
2006
Tavern Camera Ordinance Over-reaching
The City of Milwaukee is set to debate an ordinance requiring all taverns in the city to have cameras and be connected to recording devices.
That plan is over-reaching.
Already the City makes it difficult to obtain and retain a liquor license. Those owners who are able to keep their licenses are sometimes under barage from people who have a grudge against the bar or who may have moved next to the bar and after purchasing decided they don't like music. (The equivalent of marrying someone with the intention of changing them.)
This has resulted in some bar owners going to extreme lengths to monitor their noise levels and in some instances even purchasing decibal meters to measure the amount of noise that can be heard from the street.
Navigating around other pitfalls can be the doom of a bar as was the case for the Tasting Room, an eastside Cheers-style watering hole which sported the best bottled beer selection in Milwaukee. The City made the decision to tear up the street in front of the Tasting Room and left it in shambles for most of its money making months. In Milwaukee, bar traffic dries up with the festivals, including Summerfest. This means that in order to survive, bars must do well in the winter months to carry them through the slim summer months. Since the City destroyed access to the Tasting Room in those months it needed to make money to survive, it became impossible to carry it through the revenue ravaged summer.
Now, one Alderman wants to require all bars to have video cameras. That's just one more expense that will put the nail in the coffin of many struggling businesses.
The concept, in and of itself, merits debate and perhaps in establishments which have a history of violent altercations it makes sense. At the same time, bar owners who complain about big problems need to look at the reality of technology today. For the price of a laptop and a few webcams (about $2000), the average bar could be set up for surveilance. Storing the digital files shouldn't be a big problem but if the city is going to require this, they should share the cost and pony up for the software the bars are going to have to use.
Simply saying that everyone should implement full surveilance is over-reaching and unnecessary. It's time to look at a more reasonable and balanced approach.
Share
Jim McGuigan
Jim McGuigan
There are positives to having cameras in any business open to the public, especially ones open so late, like bars. If a burglary or other incident does occur, identification of the perpetrators may be easier. Cameras can also be useful for monitoring the premesis during business hours and after hours by the owner or manager who can’t be on the premesis at all times. However, the decision should be left up to the owner.
At least in Riverwest, most of the crime that is connected to taverns and other businesses open late, occurs outside. Where the cops ought to be, and where cameras often are not. Even when cameras are in place the images are often , if not typically, unhelpful.
If the goal of the mandatory camera program is safety, putting them indoors is a waste of time. The alternative is for the city to pay for them to be outside. Of course most Americans balk at the idea of Big Brother-style surveillance. Maybe they should. But if Big Brother is making private businesses do the surveillance, what’s the real difference?