US Capital Paying for Homes and Business to Get Security Cameras

By John Honovich, Published Feb 09, 2016, 12:00am EST

Since 9/11, US cities have spent hundreds of millions collectively on city-wide video surveillance system. Now, the US Capital, has an interesting and quite uncommon idea that essentially pays for local homes and business to get security cameras.

In this note, we review the bill itself and examine how this could help improve coverage at incredibly low costs.

*****

*** ********** ** **** council *** ****** * bill **** **** ** to $*** *** **************, *** * ***** of $*** *** ******** or $*** *** ******** (i.e., * ** * exterior ******* *****). *** payment **** ** ** the **** ** * rebate. **** ***** **** ** ****.

*** ********* ************ *** fairly *****, ****** ********* "outdoor ************ ******* **** functioning ******* ***** ********* capability."

*** **** *********** *********** is ** ******** *** system **** *** ****. The **** **** *** have *** ****** ****** to *** ******* *** the **** ** ** know, ********* *** ********* get ****** ** **** of * ***** ********* near *** ********* ** business.

******* 

$***,*** *** **** ********* to **** *******. ******** the ******* ****** ******* 1.5 ******* *** $***, this ***** ****** ** 2,500 *******.

*********

**** ***** ******, ********* Washington ** *** ***** millions ** ***** *** internally ******** *** ******* **** video ************ *******. ***** are ******* ******** **** are ********* ** ***** and ********. ** ***** costs ********* *** $**,*** *** camera, ***** *** ***** of ************ *** ************ of ***** ********** ** urban ****.

******** ** **** *****, spending $*** *** ****** is ********* **** *********. Of ******, *** ************* is *** **** ******* (i.e., **/* **-****** ** manually ***** ** * person's ***** ** ******** and ********** **). *** we ******* **** ** a **** ********, *********** getting *,*** ******** ******* the *********** *** ***** easily **** $**+ ******* vs *** **** ******* here. *** *** ******* crimes (*******, *****, ***.), the **** ***** *** a **** *********** ** getting ******** ********.

***********

*** ** **** ******* ** the ************ ******* ******* **** pays *** ** ******* cameras. *** **** ***** ***** private / ****** **** approach ** **** **** remains ******* **** - ***+ Camera **** ****** ** 90% ***** ****.

Comments (11)

The technical requirements are fairly broad, simply requiring "outdoor surveillance cameras with functioning digital video recording capability."

Broad enough for an Analog HD camera to make the cut? Even if it is, they are only reimbursing for cameras, or is there a different allowance for recorder? Or do you get to just average the price with the recorder?

Says it's an emergency 90 day measure, so act now!

Agree
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

Another factor not mentioned above is the side bonus of the home/business owner gets use of the system for personal usage to boot.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

...side bonus of the owner gets use of the system to boot.

What is the other bonus of the system?

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Taxpayer savings...

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Taxpayer savings...

You have an unusually noble sense of priorities. ;)

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Since most home cameras are indoors, and this rebate requires outdoor cameras, it may spur additional cameras that might not otherwise be installed.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

While I don't do many residential installs, I've yet to install ANY indoor cameras.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Sure, because DIYing indoor cameras is a lot simpler than outdoor ones.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

...I've yet to install ANY indoor cameras.

You must be the guy from the survey. ;)

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny: 1

I don't think I was around here in 2012, but if I would have been here, that chart would have said TWO INTEGRATORS at 100%!!

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny: 1

I don't think I was around here in 2012...

Agree, looking at my IPVM one-liner collection, your first entry doesn't appear until late 2013. ;)

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Read this IPVM report for free.

This article is part of IPVM's 7,199 reports and 959 tests and is only available to subscribers. To get a one-time preview of our work, enter your work email to access the full article.

Already a subscriber? Login here | Join now
Loading Related Reports