Tourism Argument

Use of Web Cams

Now, that brings me to the unnecessary and unethical use of the web cams, which is also costing a fortune. Web cams can open the door to so many issues, including potential law suits. One example that is well-known is the Google cams. Google cams that display city streets have been under fire for the same reasons I bring up.

The next concern is when they put the footage on the tourist counsel's Web site; this brings the world into our neighborhood. This is a bad idea. If a bad guy can see a potential victim's house, license plate, etc. and figure out where they live, who they are...this is a very unsafe situation for anyone simply out enjoying a day on the lake, thinking they are not only minding their own business, not realizing they are on a web cam.

If these web cams are insisted upon, a public notice should be sent out to all citizens in the community. In addition, signs should be posted in the area the cameras cover so all visitors are aware they may be being "watched" by said web cams. If you do a Google search, you will see for yourself that there is a massive amount of horror stories pinned to the use of web cams. I strongly feel we are playing with fire allowing this Tourism department to make use of them.

Only our police should be allowed to employ the use of webcams and only for potential crime, if they would deem it helpful to do so.

Note: I have not discussed this with any police officers or the Chief of Police, so I am not aware of their stand on this matter; however, that is not my point. My point simply is that the police and ONLY the police should ever be entrusted with such an incredible responsibility if we are to put public web cams to use in any fashion. For example…

We have residents who have been pleading for cameras in troubled parks to help fight the increasing drugs, gang and crime issues we face in Sheboygan today. They have been silenced and ignored for years - - at least 3 years that I am aware of. Yet this Tourism department frivolously and foolishly gets the right to put cameras in place -- just like that. Something about this is extremely backwards and will do nothing to enhance our community be it by means of gaining tourists or fighting crime. Quite the contrary, it has the extreme potential for TROUBLE.

This simply has to be taken more seriously post haste. Just look at the recent criminal activity records – they’re abhorrent. If you haven’t seen them lately, I am sure the police would be more than happy to inform. Alternatively, they post crime statistics on their Web site for those who are so inclined to look them up.

Furthermore, we now are up to 41 gangs. Last summer that number was 27. This increase is alarming at best. I implore you to please start taking our security concerns into serious consideration and start acting upon them. By eliminating this wasteful Tourism Department, we could empower our community with tools to fight crime.

Start by ridding us of this burden of an added Tourism Dept. Next, take the 10 percent of room tax dollars that can be put to other use to please help us begin a serious battle on crime.

Look at the costs incurred thus far that show on the requests:

06/26/07 -- Axis 225 Network Camera and outdoor power housing; labor, installation, configuration of camera, outdoor cable and misc.
Paid to: Excel Net (again Excel Net profits)
COST: $2205.22

06/15/07 -- Flex connector and alum blnk cover
Paid to: Superior Electrical Supply
COST: $5.76

06/15/07 – Wire shielded (for web cam)
Paid to Superior Electrical Supply
COST: $141.35

These costs are only the beginning. In the reports I have in my possession it states that they wish to add another public web cam in addition to six pod casts. None of this is necessary. This is simply not going to draw more people to the area. There is no evidence that says such and no reason to believe it will. In addition, they gave no viable explanation as to why this was/is necessary. The only thing I can see is that Excel Net made a nice, hefty profit off the city while Kim Swishers husband was employed there. One simply cannot help but make that connection.

Web Cams Are Not Even Feasible

Recent statistics as of August 30, 2007, show the following:

Survey: Web Video Watchers Favor News Clips and Shorter Ads ( http://www.clickz.com/3626896 )

"Rather, streaming video fans are by and large over-35 news junkies who tolerate in-stream ads in short bursts."

"News was by far the most popular content type, having been sought out by 62 percent of respondents during the period covered by the survey. It was followed by movie trailers (38 percent) in a distant second place and music videos (36 percent) in third."

(Survey done by Advertising.com)

So you see, firstly, those who view video content the most do so for news, not travel. Secondly, overall people aren’t going to spend massive amounts of time staring at a web cam to watch people milling about on a lake (unless they have some malicious intent, that is).

I've read through all the meeting minutes and all the documentation received. No where do I see any analysis done regarding the potential effectiveness of web cams or any such thing. I see nothing noted that this was researched and discussed at any length. And I might add, this was also the case with the web hosting -- no cost-comparisons. How can one not view this as incredibly irresponsible fiscally?

This is extremely irresponsible fiscally. It is a very poor business practice and we must not allow it to continue to set a precedent of wastefulness and lack of proper planning.

I fear we already have been literally robbed by this department with poor advice, greed, dishonesty and horrendous abuse. These public web cams are the final straw.

Back to Previous Page