Security Cameras - Pros and Cons

This discussion started off in a different thread...some people thought it would be interesting and useful on it's own sooooo

In my neighborhood a few years ago we had one of our annual crime waves so we did a survey to find out how the community feels about security cameras. Some people love them, and some don't but we definitely did not have a majority that was for them.

Last year we had a another wave, the previous board uni-laterally decided to get a camera, without getting input from the community first and our assessment doubled at the same time. A lot of people were not happy. Because it was a contentious issue with a lot of different opinions I would have pushed for allowing the community to vote on this.

In my own research on them, outside of the marketing hype from the camera manufacturers there seems to be mixed empirical evidence on their efficacy. Opinions from people and board members from various communities seem to reflect that as well.

Some people think they are as good as buying insurance. Others have privacy concerns and there are the people who don't think they work. So what are other peoples stories, opinions etc.? Did you install them and did they actually reduce crime? Do you hate them etc.?

May I add that it really doesn't matter public opinion. What matters is the Court/police opinion. Is the footage admissible in court? Would it allow the police to press charges? Is it good enough to find the offenders?

The purpose of having camera's are to prevent crime or identify who did the crime. Prevention only happens if announced and makes one fearful of being caught not to commit the crime. Not all criminals care.

Identifying the criminal and then pressing charges is a whole new issue for your HOA. Who has the right to video footage? If it's not a crime against the HOA, do you give the individual who is a copy? If the crime is against the HOA, does it press charges? How will that work?

Security camera footage is mostly helpful for identifying and proof. The crime has already been committed. What are the laws about use of camera's for your area and can the footage be used in court? That would be what my concerns would be.

If its just the appearance of security that is needed to help deter criminals, a few visible dummy cameras would have done the trick for a lot less money.....and would have been a lot less controversial......

I'm going to come at this from a manager's point of view.

I've managed properties with cameras and properties without. Those that put in cameras did so for "security" reasons; I find that generally these are a good idea if the community has more than just basic amenities (work best if the community has a clubhouse, pool, etc.). What I don't recommend is tying the camera system into the internet. One community I worked did this and the board members (apparently) spent all their free time (and they were retired so "free time" was in abundance) watching the employees. The trivial complaints from these board members about the employees' use of time got so bad (and thereby wasting MY time) that the internet tie-in some how "went down" for an extended period of time.

To wrap up this diatribe, I am in favour of cameras in common areas, there is a video record of incidents on the association property in case of claims of injury (and I've been through more of those than I care to count), theft, etc.

Right, do not use dummy cameras as they could give your residents a false sense of security; it's not advised. Ask your insurance rep for confirmation.

We're twin towers on a city block in an urban area. So we have a lot of cameras aimed at our perimeter sidewalks, exteriors entrances to our two lobbies and at the driveway gated entrance w/kiosk to underground parking. We have a fair amount viewing the pool/spa area, in our elevators and a pedestrian hallway that opens to the sidewalk. We have 24/7 security officers to monitor the screens.

We think they do deter misbehavior among residents at the pool and would definitely help us identify resident who, say, jumped the fence into the pool area. They've been effective twice to see who caused (minor) damage in elevators.

There should be NO expectation of privacy in common areas.

That is good to know with the dummy cameras.

OK, let me give you a detailed rundown of how our camera situation came to be....this is going to be long, so bear with me here .

Our hoa is 130 homes, and had been in existence for over 10 years. It only turned over to the homeowners a few years ago. It is un-gated with two entrances. The county maintains all of the streets, sewer etc.. For "common" areas it only has a small waking trail, two entrance signs (one at each entrance) and some undeveloped natural forest which is zoned to remain un-developed. Assessments up until this year were at $150 per year.

Since the community began, because we are in a higher crime metro, you get small periodic rashes of crime. Usually that means once a year you will get a couple of car break ins and once every few years something larger would happen. IE: a home break in. Whenever that happens we get the police involved, and usually hold a community meeting. Whenever that happens you get a small group of vocal people calling for extra security. Everything from cameras to gating the community. The gates, incidentally would require that the HOA take over maintenance of the roads, sewer, water etc. and increase our dues 10 to 20 times over....just as an FYI.

A few years ago, a survey was done after one of these incidents about the possibility of putting in some cameras at the entrance and even after that we only had about 33% that were in favor of them.

OK, so in June last year we had an incident where somebody came home late at night, was followed into their driveway, held up at gunpoint and had their car high jacked. We had a community meeting with the chief of police, who shared the crime statistics etc.. Also, at that meeting, the county DA was present and had (unsolicited) invited a camera vendor to give a talk about their product.

In July of last year, there was a small, informal meeting about security and the board asked them to form a committee and present ideas. At the time the board asked for options etc. for security cameras from the community as well. Interest in the security died down and nobody did anything with it.

Then in September a person close to the board leaked on a HOA website that the dues were going to go up from $150 a year to $250 a year. That message was quickly removed, but some of us saw it.

Then it was announced that the board has chosen a vendor (the one who was invited by the DA) for cameras and signed a contract for them for one year. At that point a lot of residents felt blind-sided by this and asked why this hadn't been discussed with the community. This particular one charges you a fee on a per year basis and then provides the HOA with the cameras and a portal to monitor them.

The installation of the cameras was another issue. In order to install the cameras a suitable locations in the community they needed to get easements from homeowners at both entrances of the community because they needed to be put on homeowners individual lots, not common property. When the contracts had been signed easements had not been granted. After a month our secretary sent out a message stating that they had the proper easements on one side of the neighborhood but on the other side people were not responding and they were looking for alternatives along with a side note (this was in writing) that they felt it was a shame that some people didn't want to grant the easements for the good of the community.

That message created some discussion on our official public chat group, including some expressing concern about the board publicly shaming owners for not wanting to grand easements. Both myself and others brought up the $150 - $250 per year increase that was mentioned along with this. At that point the secretary told us that an increase had not been decided on and to please not spread false rumors.

After another month, the cameras were installed. Then in December an official announcement came out from the board about the assessments and the increase was actually increasing from $150 to $300 a year. The cameras accounting for 1/3rd of the increase.

As luck would have it, the company that was providing the cameras contacted me about possibly doing some work on their product, so I went in and had a chance to see things behind the scenes. After speaking with them I decided to turn down the work for a number of reasons. I also saw some things (not under any kind of NDA etc.) while talking with them than concerned me about the reliability and effectiveness of the product. The biggest one was what the cameras are mounted at about 5 to 6 feet high and have a easily accessible switch that will power them down. AKA, someone could walk up to the cameras and disable them.

At this point I was not a board member, elections had not taken place and I shared all of this information with the community.

Then in mid January, we had a board meeting. At the meeting the secretary stated that we could get out of the contract with a 60 day notice for the cameras if we wanted to. Elections happened I got on the board and had a chance to see the contract. The contract for the cameras is actually 2 years not one and there is no cancellation clause. The contract also does not have any damages/penalties specified for an early breach and according to our lawyer we could probably cancel it without penalty if we ever wanted to early .....and the sales guy said that they could cancel early but... Anyhow I motioned to update the community with the actual status of that and it went through.

One other thing to note, this is probably the most cost effective solution if your going to have cameras but there are drawbacks etc., it went with a dues increase and given the controversial nature of it among the residents it may nor may not have had a majority of homeowners in support of it. Based on the previous poll etc. it probably didn't

Anyhow this is how they came to be in our community.

Unless your governing documents explicitly state that the HOA is responsible for security within the HOA (much like it probably says the HOA is responsible for maintenance of common areas, e.g., landscaping contract), I think you'd be hard pressed to find real justification that would legally permit the Board to collect money in the form of an assessment and spend it on camera installation/recording/monitoring. There's probably some vague verbiage that could be improperly used as justification for what was done . . . but it would take legal review to determine one way or the other.

As one poster discussed, unless you have tangible assets belonging to the HOA like a clubhouse, pool, equipment . . . then cameras owned/operated by the HOA are unnecessary and an overall bad idea.

If individual owners want to increase security (cameras, alarms, lighting, deadbolts, guard dog, remote monitoring, etc.) in and around their homes, then that is completely their choice (IAW what docs allow) and the expense will be only theirs. And those that don't feel increased security is necessary will not be burdened with the expense of it.

Lots of differing opinions here.

The same is true in our community, and unlike some of the posters here ours did not get the cameras to protect assets owned by the HOA (because it doesn't have buildings etc to protect). This is why I suggested that we do a community survey/vote in the future for controversial/contentious issues such as this. Legally the board doesn't need to (in our community), but it puts things back on the owners to decide vs a (often) vocal minority.

IF you are a un-gated community of 130 detached homes, you should have cameras ONLY for assets and common elements within the complex.

Much different set of responsibilities when living in a condo/townhome from a single family detached home.

Many studies indicate a correlation between property values and crime. Even in an ungated community of stand-alone homes, I think a board voting for an appropriately designed and priced camera security system, with the intent of capturing among other things, all vehicles entering and leaving through the HOA's entrances, is doing its job. I'm with GeorgeS21 and the several others here supporting such a security system. After a couple of years, if the system does no seem to be helping, it may always be eliminated.

ND,
The Board is elected by the Owners to make decision for the Homeowners. It is that simple. If you do not like the decisions they make as a group you vote them out.

You couldn't be more incorrect. And if that's your position as a Board Member, then good luck to you. Your statement would be more correct as follows . . .
The Board is elected by the Owners to make decision for the Homeowners IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DOCUMENTS OF THE HOA.

Boards cannot simply spend HOA money willy nilly on whatever they deem to be necessary. Spending the HOA's money on something needs to be sufficiently justified by the documents or owners must authorize the collection and spending of their money for a specific purpose (IAW the documents). If you stretch the intent of some verbiage of the documents to permit the HOA to spend money on "security" for the HOA, then be ready for some type of backlash (the extent of which will be discovered later).

There are two issues at play here.

#1 Some of us have a philosophy of the board being to serve the interests of the residents by going to them for input on controversial issues. Others have the opinion that once the board is elected they can do what they think is best even if the community is against it etc.. My own personal ethics are such where I do not feel I am doing the right thing by the community by doing something that I think is right, but the majority disagree with. So Mark etc. we will have to agree to disagree on that philosophical point. Legally for many HOA both styles are legal, but that point is a contentious issue and comes down to personal leadership philosophy and style.

#2 Now, lets circle back to the cameras.

a. I heard some reasonable points for having them to monitor common areas owned buy the HOA. Beyond security it sounded like there were some cases were they could be used to fairly enforce rules while using these common areas. It also sounds like there is not as much controversy with that application.
b. When you have an un-gated community with no real common areas it sounds like there is a bit more controversy and not as much consensus. The arguments for are because they reduce crime and if crime is reduced that will increase home values.

Does it reduce enough crime to pay for the system? Will it prevent crime? Did anybody install cameras and have a noticeable decrease in neighborhood crime?

Below are some studies I've run across. The results seem to be mixed and seem to be contingent on proper application of them when they do reduce crime. The reductions however seem to be below 50%. Has anybody else come across some other interesting studies that show results one way or the other?

Here is one study on the Ring doorbells that showed no correlation between cameras and reduced crime (full disclosure, I have a Ring).
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612307/video-doorbell-firm-ring-says-its-devices-slash-crimebut-the-evidence-looks-flimsy/

and here is another one that says that they do help.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2017/03/29/crime-busting-video-doorbell-ring-expands-clones-undercut-price/99677840/

This one seems to show some correlation depending on what it is used for.
https://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/knowledgebase/there-empirical-evidence-surveillance-cameras-reduce-crime

This one shows a modest amount of improvement.
https://cebcp.org/evidence-based-policing/what-works-in-policing/research-evidence-review/cctv/

This one seems to indicate that they are effective if you have a lot of them.
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/27556/412403-evaluating-the-use-of-public-surveillance-cameras-for-crime-control-and-prevention_0.pdf

Effective if monitored correctly, otherwise they are not
https://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/default/files/library/crimeprevention/volume_10/05-Phillips-CCTV_Evaluations.pdf

EVEN if half the community weren't going to be paying for them?

I would think that this can't be quantified.

To me, cameras either give peace of mind or don't.
Cameras can also lead to concerns big brother is watching, or not.

Since the return would be subjective, it really can't be quantified.

If the cameras are properly placed and of good quality, they should be helpful in aiding police to catch those who are breaking the laws.
I do not think cameras actually stop crime.

In some applications, such as in enclosed spaces there seems to be more empirical data in favor of them. But then again part of that might also be that it is combined with a store security officer etc. plus it can help deter employee theft etc. in the case of in store cameras at Wal-Mart. This also might factor in with the security cameras for HOA common amenities such as pools and their effectiveness for the application.

But, if the data is not as conclusive for another application, how can you make a non-biased decision about getting them? When your in that boat it feels like a vote among the community would be the only way you could remove that bias because this is one of those issues of preference and people having strong opinions that go both directions.

My purpose here was to learn more, get data etc... IE: is there compelling empirical/quantifiable data to support it that I had not seen. As of yet that doesn't appear to be the case. To be clear my question is not about the legality of the decision, it was legal.

My position up to this point has been that because there is not empirical evidence, and it was controversial in our community, why not give all stakeholders (the owners) a chance to actually have a say in it. Legally you don't have to, and some people feel that ethically the board should do what they want in that circumstance. I personally did not like that when I was in that situation as a homeowner and as such do not think it is the right thing to do. Some of us have differing opinions/styles relating to that and that is fine. Discussing those reasons helps us to better understand people with different styles/views etc..

As to what to do to solve that etc., I'm well aware of what it would take to reverse that decision, so that's not my question etc.. Sometimes the purpose is to just discuss things and learn. I would hope that is the reason we are all here.

Stasi-level security and Facebook. What a wonderful combination.

Wont be too long before someone offers flock like device with facial recognition.....

I support video surveillance of entries and exits.

Not sure why the video or plate numbers would be posted in Facebook or anywhere else ... every neighborhood I know with this sort of surveillance simply maintains the hard drive, and waits for the police to request the video, following a crime.

Flock cameras use AWS cloud storage rather than hard drives. Not sure about Ring cameras, but I would guess they use cloud storage too.

Personally, if I were going to use cameras in an HOA, I'd much rather go with a traditional hardwired solution rather than anything Internet-based. Even if the storage itself is secure, most of these systems are hackable to anyone sufficiently motivated or may even have backdoors built into them.

Sorry - in my head when I say “hard drive” I mean a storage device somewhere.

Given the low level of interest/value to bad guys, and the limited issues with the loss of some data, I would be very comfortable hosting this through an online storage system. It might also assuage the concerns of some to having a neighbor hosting it. Might also be technically easier to implement?

what is the brand or install company that did this? I am cuirous to see how much it costs?

I am trying to figure out why it is that the BOARD got involved anyway as far as signing a contract with a camera vendor? If the homeowners feel safer having a camera for SECURITY PURPOSES only, why not let them install them like at their garage or front door? As long as they are not aimed at another homeowners window or front door such as in my case where my neighbor has used them to stalk me, then what is the harm to increase the feeling at least of being more secure with the security cameras?