The cameras are for the crime, not the color of the residents. Only the idea that the cameras should be evenly distributed is ba<x>sed on racism.
An actuality the crime rate in the other neighborhood would probably not rise. High numbers of criminals probably do not live in the safer neighbor hood,, And, if the bad guys are being caught in the other neighborhood, then they are less of a threat to the safer neighborhood.
no, that would have been silly, the goal was to reduce crime by being able to catch the criminals, so logically you would go find them where the most crime is occurring and in your example would the second neighborhood.
sadly you maybe right.
Or saying things like we need to stop spending money we don't have.
The problem with government is that few people with financial backgrounds are employed there. Remember $400 toilet seats?
Your theory of racism here is flawed. <br />
There is limited funding to pay for surveillance cameras and monitoring them. It is logical and effective that cameras would be placed in high crime areas. <br />
the racial makeup of the high crime area makes no difference. <br />
If you were placing security cameras on your home and you could only afford 2 cameras, you would probably install them with a view of your doors. You would not place one of the cameras with a view limited to your kitchen. The same basic theory applies here. <br />
Perhaps you should be less interested in finding alleged racism and more interested in the reduction of crime.
They probably "borrowed" the money to install the ones that they have in place. Most capital projects by governments are financed through bonds. And, BTW, you and I, taxpayers have to pay for them. PC is BS.
What does water rates have to do with bonds for other projects? What alternative universe do you live in?