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!

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

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

What is the other bonus of the system?

Taxpayer savings...

Taxpayer savings...

You have an unusually noble sense of priorities. ;)

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

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

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

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

You must be the guy from the survey. ;)

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%!!

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. ;)

Read this IPVM report for free.

This article is part of IPVM's 6,728 reports, 907 tests and is only available to members. To get a one-time preview of our work, enter your work email to access the full article.

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