The consensus among law enforcement and security experts is that electronic home security helps deter crime. The same goes when small businesses choose to invest in electronic security. So it would not be surprising to learn of a local municipality encouraging residents to install security equipment. But should city government be paying for it?
That was the question being asked in Downey, CA this past May. City Council was entertaining the thought of reimbursing residents up to $250 for the installation of new, first-time home security equipment. A similar rebate of up to $1,500 was being considered for small businesses.
How the Program Would Work
The proposed program was designed to be a first-come, first-served offering inviting residents and business owners to apply for rebates after investing in equipment. The rebates would not be applicable to installation fees, monthly monitoring subscriptions, or any tools needed to install devices. They would only be applicable to the equipment itself.
In addition, the rebates would only apply to new equipment purchased within 60 days of the application. Residents and business owners who installed security systems more than two months prior would not be eligible.
A report from the city explains the rationale. It states that home security systems help deter crime while simultaneously improving police response times and assisting law enforcement with investigations. Downey is considering the program after seeing success with similar programs in neighboring towns.
The Reasoning Makes Sense
On its face, the rebate program seems like a good idea. The reasoning behind it makes sense: deterring crime and improving law enforcement response makes communities safer. A safer community also means fewer resources for policing. So in theory, the entire community benefits by getting on board with electronic security for homes and businesses.
In its guide to the best home security systems for California, Vivint Home Security discusses both residential and business security. They cite data suggesting more than four million small businesses in the Golden State, with more than half of them being home-based.
A home-based business owner installing a security system on his property protects both his home and his business. Consider it a two-for-one scenario. The more homes and businesses protected by active security, the safer California communities should be. At least that is the thinking.
Home Security and the Deterrence Factor
Let’s take the Downey report at face value and assume that home security systems do deter crime. Why is that? I can think of several reasons, the first being that burglars and home invaders do not want to get caught. Home security systems with multiple video cameras increase the risks criminals take. Why take such risks unnecessarily?
Security cameras provide evidence. They link individuals to crime scenes. That is enough to scare away at least some burglars and home invaders. Throw in around-the-clock monitoring and you make the proposition of breaking into a home even more risky.
Vivint and many of its competitors offer monitoring services on a monthly subscription basis. With professional monitoring, a home or business security system is always connected to a remote monitoring center. The moment an alarm is triggered, personnel at the monitoring center are made aware. They can respond accordingly.
Professional monitoring theoretically decreases law enforcement response times because local police departments are informed more quickly. Criminals know this. They know they are taking a bigger risk vandalizing a home equipped with a monitored security system.
The Question of Who Pays the Bill
Encouraging residents and business owners to install monitored security systems makes sense from a public safety standpoint. Perhaps every city and town in America should do so. But that is only half the equation. The other half is who will pay the bill. Therein lies the rub for so many municipalities that would love to see widespread security system adoption.
In Downey, funds for the rebate program are limited. The city only has $40,000 to spend. Once funds are exhausted, that will be it.
With local, state, and federal budgets consistently facing deficits, the lawmakers who spend our money need to be careful about what they spend it on. Public safety is a worthwhile expenditure because it impacts all of us. But how far does public safety go from a budgetary standpoint? Is it the local government’s responsibility to make sure we are protecting ourselves?
A Good Chunk of Money
In the grand scheme of things, $40,000 isn’t a lot of money for a local government to spend on anything. But $250 for a resident and $1,500 for a small business represents a good chunk of money. The rebates put a significant dent in the amount an individual would pay for a decent home security system.
What would that kind of money get you? Depending on the brand you chose to go with, you could probably get an entry level package consisting of:
- Sensors for windows and doors
- A video camera or two
- A few motion detectors
- A central hub
A resident or business owner could match the government funds to double the size of his system. More cameras equals more video coverage. More motion sensors mean better coverage across interior spaces. More equals better in home security, because more sensors and cameras provide more information.
What Else Is on the Table?
Electronic security for homes and businesses is obviously a good idea. But I can’t help but wonder if city government should be paying for it. I don’t even know whether state or federal agencies should be helping foot the bill. For me, the big question is this: what else is on the table?
Governments at all levels spend money on all sorts of things. But the government cannot pay for everything. At some point, there need to be limits. The question is where those limits are drawn. And in this case, although it makes sense to encourage local businesses and residents to install security systems, I am not sure helping pay for those systems is something city government should be involved in.
