How about a camera demonstration project?

You could soon be on candid camera, but you won't be smiling about what it costs you. 

Last week, a compliant Projects Committee endorsed a $150,000-plus management proposal to install between 26 and 32 "security" cameras in each of International Village's 11 residential buildings, for a total of about 300 cameras. How would it be funded? With a special assessment, costing about $200 per unit, broken up into three or four monthly payments. (See 9/17/13 Projects Committee meeting video here.) 

But before our property manager brings this massive NSA-style surveillance scheme to the Board of Directors for a vote, I'd like to propose an alternative inspired by our recent decision regarding speed humps. Back in June, the Board shot down a plan to install 24 speed humps throughout the Village, opting instead for a "demonstration project" to put in just four in order to test their effectiveness. We could do the same thing with cameras, but unlike the speed hump test run (which thanks to a recent change order will cost upwards of $6,500), the camera pilot project wouldn't cost us anything because we already have cameras in the clubhouse – only they apparently haven't yet ever been put to the test. As I reported in my last blog post, equipment has disappeared from the clubhouse gym without ever being recovered, despite the presence of cameras in the gym room and throughout the clubhouse, a full-time guard monitoring the cameras at the front desk and a visitor sign-in log. So before we consider expanding the camera system to our residential buildings, I think we owe it to owners to show what good they're doing where they already exist. Otherwise, it'll be money down the drain at best, and a huge unnecessary invasion of privacy at worst. 

My proposal is simple: Give management 120 days to prove they can make cameras work in the clubhouse before they bring their surveillance system special assessment plan to the Board. The proof should be in the form of a report detailing all incidents of theft, property damage or other violations that take place during those four months and whether cameras helped nab the culprits. That way, we'll at least have something solid to base our vote on. 

Speaking of special assessments, our 2012-13 special assessment fund is now down to only about $175,000 following our most recent Board meeting last week (see 9/16/13 Board of Directors meeting video here), in which we OK'd more than $35,000 in spending, the bulk of which will come out of that rapidly diminishing fund. 

The Board approved the following items:  

• Up to $16,000 to replace four old air conditioning ducts in the clubhouse. The actual price may be lower, depending on the bids we get. 

• A $7,780 contract with Todd Knapp Inc. to stabilize the clubhouse pool pump room ceiling. The repairs will correct a problem existing since 2009, when the City of Lauderhill posted an "Unsafe Structure" violation notice on the pump room door because of the ceiling.  

• A $5,200 clubhouse roof change order with Todd Knapp Inc. for the removal of old protruding stucco finish around the perimeter of the roof to prevent water infiltration, and the replacement of affected shingles. 

• A $3,000 contract, also with Todd Knapp Inc. to reinforce the delaminating Grenoble building façade facing the Orleans using galvanized steel tapcons. 

• A $2,655 speed hump change order with Atlantic Southern Paving and Sealcoating for additional asphalt to meet city code requirements, bringing the project's total cost to $6,580 – or $1,645 per speed hump. That sounded pretty steep for a speed bump to me, so I voted against it, just as I voted no on the original project when it first came up on June 10.  

• A $4,000 contract with S&S Inventive Technologies to replace the Orleans trash compactor, using operating funds. 

Special assessment for cameras?

The International Village Board of Directors will hold its regular monthly meeting tonight (Monday, Sept. 16 at 7 p.m.), but the Board meeting may just be a warm-up act for what could be the week’s main attraction on Tuesday at 6 p.m. when the Projects Committee meets to discuss a proposed $100,000-plus special assessment to install 26 security cameras in each of the association's 11 residential buildings.

Proponents of the idea – which could translate into a $150 special assessment hit per unit owner – say cameras are needed to catch people in the act of dumping garbage in front of laundry rooms, stealing mail packages from people’s front doors and various other violations. Opponents counter that it’s a violation of privacy, reminiscent of a maximum-security prison, and an unnecessarily burdensome expense at a time when many owners are still recovering from the last special assessment and other big projects on the horizon are threatening to wipe out our rapidly dwindling 2012-13 special assessment fund. Critics also question cameras’ effectiveness, noting that a set of dumbbells recently disappeared from the clubhouse gym despite the presence of cameras in the gym room and throughout the clubhouse. Even advocates of security cameras in every building are balking at the high price tag, saying a surveillance system could be installed for a fraction of the proposed cost, either by finding a more reasonable vendor or by forgoing the Quantico Prison model in favor of a more modest system with fewer cameras. 

Regardless of the cost, it might instructive to first examine the outcome of the Zurich building’s experiment with cameras before making any decisions on this issue. In June 2009, a committee of Zurich owners won the Board of Directors’ approval to install surveillance cameras in that building at their own expense. What were the results of that effort? 

It’s also worth noting the ironic fact that this issue is coming up only a few short months after the owners of a Bordeaux unit were refused permission to install a security camera in front of their door at their own expense. Does this mean that cameras are good if they’re paid for by a special assessment, but bad if they don’t cost us anything? Where’s the logic?