Someone help this town

Despite lingering questions about the value of public surveillance, it's clear that public surveillance remains a viable market. At some level, it's not about rationality or statistics. It's about people loving video and wanting to be able to see for themselves. Check this classic small-town story: The good people of Waynsefield, Ohio, want to stop their graffiti problem. How badly to do they want to stop it? Well, they've dedicated $350 to solving the problem:
WAYNESFIELD — The search is still on as Waynesfield Village Council members continue looking for additional surveillance equipment to install in its park as an effort to prevent future vandalism. After checking with retailers such as Radio Shack and Sam’s Club, Waynesfield Police Chief Lee Ziegler said he found several cameras and receivers but they did not come packaged with anything like a DVR to record up to long periods of time.
Ack! Radio Shack and Sam's Club? Why would that be the first idea? Because maybe the security industry is kind of crappy about advertising its services and abilities? Hard to say.
“For me to be able to put something adequate together for the allotted $350 I was allowed might not be possible unless we were to purchase something used,” Ziegler said during Monday night’s meeting.
Somebody help these guys out. First of all, is it possible the graffiti is only causing $350 in damage? If it's a problem at all, you've got to think that's a really low number. Someone do an ROI analysis, STAT! Also, someone needs to be out there with a leasing option for these people. I'm sure this is based on an annual budget, so it's more like $350 a year they can spend. I'm sure someone could set them up with a nice $30 a month system using Videofied (or whomever - but this is sort of their bag right now) that would send video clips on motion to the cops and virtually eliminate the graffiti problem.
Councilors advised Ziegler to further check into purchasing additional park surveillance equipment through an on-line retailer or contracting the installment of a new surveillance system out with a security company. He is to have prepared with price quotes for council’s next scheduled meeting at 7:30 p.m. on Aug. 24.
Double ack! Option 1: Sam's Club and Radio Shack. Option 2: Online retailer. Option 3: security company! What's wrong here? Um, basically that the public, in this case, doesn't value the services of security companies in the least. The assumption is that that solution will be the most expensive and that there isn't value associated with that expense. That's bad.


For 350 bucks, I'll hang out in their park with a baseball bat and scare spray paint-laden ne'er-do-wells away. For an extra $50, I'll even attempt to remember what they looked like for later identification... you get what you pay for.

hey! Stop picking on online retailers! Some of us do not suck quite as hard as some of the rest of us...