Manhattan Beach Gets Two NYPD Security Cameras



by on Aug 14th, 2014

cameras

Manhattan Beach now has some eyes in the sky after two NYPD security cameras were installed last month in the beachfront community.

The cameras were made available with state funding, initiated by Borough Park Assemblyman Dov Hikind, who pushed for them after the tragic abduction and murder of Leiby Kletzky in 2011. While most of the cameras were placed in Borough Park and Midwood, Councilman Chaim Deutsch said he worked with the state pol to ensure some funds would be set aside for Manhattan Beach.

The cameras are on lightpoles on West End Avenue, one on Oriental Boulevard the other on Shore Boulevard, covering the two most utilized exits and entrances for the community.

Although the neighborhood is not a high-crime hotspot, Deutsch said it was important for Manhattan Beach to have the cameras, since it’s a heavily trafficked area with seniors and children using the parks, as well as thousands of Kingsborough Community College students coming and going every day.

“If a child leaves a house and is missing, or an Alzheimer’s patient, we can go back and look at it and see if they left or came in,” said Deutsch. “It’s not really for the high crime area. If there’s a missing person, child, patient, at least we have some kind of direction.”

The cameras are not monitored in real time, and will only be accessed by NYPD personnel, the pol said.

Related posts

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,


  • Local Broker

    Maybe they can use it to catch people not cleaning up after their dogs.


  • BayResident

    Lets take a look at a map of Councilman Deutsch’s district:

    http://maps.nyc.gov/doitt/nycitymap/?searchType=FeatureSearch&featureTypeName=CITY_COUNCIL_DISTRICT&featureName=48

    How does West End Avenue at Oriental and at Shore Blvd fall even remotely near the top of anyone’s “heavily trafficked area” list? Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad the cameras didn’t make it anywhere near my home (yet), but I can’t help but be curious as to why exactly is it that Councilman Deutsch specifically took the time to work with Hikind to secure funds for Manhattan Beach? More specifically, why these two locations?

    I’m not buying the “think of the children” excuse. When was the last time this was actually problem in Manhattan Beach? When have children or Alzheimer patients went missing from specifically Manhattan Beach? And does this mean we should close down the pedestrian bridge too? Because if I’m a child that’s run away from home the first thing I’ll do is walk over the cool looking blue bridge, way before I ever get to either of these cameras.

    Something doesn’t add up here, but I guess the moral of the story is that if you live in Manhattan Beach and don’t want our dear protectors knowing exactly when you enter or leave your home, you should probably park your car on Emmons and walk over the bridge from now on.


    • BrooklynBus

      Unless you enter or leave Manhattan Beach at Hampton Avenue, you would have to pass these two locations where the cameras were placed. That’s why these locations were chosen. Your only other choices would be boat or air.


      • BayResident

        Well yes, that part I understand. What I don’t understand is what happened in Manhattan Beach to justify the tax payers of New York State paying to systematically monitor the movements in and out of the neighborhood by all of its residents and/or guests.


        • PissedoffbytheBayBoy

          Dear BayFUCKINResident: The residents of MB pay so much FUCKIN taxes that these cameras are CHUMP change. Its good that there are camera’s there because there is a ton of people who come from other neighborhoods (day and night) to “chill” on the bay and cause havok, race their rice rockets, and cause major traffic accidents. Look into the history and you will find many people who were killed or injured because of these idiots who think that MB is a speedway.


          • BayResident

            Talk about totally missing the point. This one went totally over your head my angry friend but its okay, I admire your passion to defend OUR neighborhood. Lets break it down for the fuming and simple-minded: I couldn’t care less about the money. I would be all for spending more on improving MB residents’ lives. If you think monitoring everyone who enters or leaves the area will somehow keep others out or stop accidents then I would certainly appreciate an explanation on how you envision that happening. Or is it more likely that two cameras, installed at the very enterence to the raods which lead into MB, are nowhere near where the racing always takes place, and there for won’t address anything other the NYPD’s ability to monitor when YOU and your neighbors enter and leave the area. If my concern here isn’t clear then perhaps you deserve your very own NYPD camera installed on your doorstep to keep the idiots out as you think cameras are capable of doing. I’ll pay for it myself.


  • alan r

    This is so bad. This is 1984 in real life. “BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!


  • Andrew Kent

    The NYPD doesn’t care who enters or leaves the community unless a crime is committed, in which case they have the resources and legal authority to run plate checks to eliminate residents so that they can focus on transient vehicles, as well as those on foot or bicycles, in search of persons of interest. This has nothing to do with Big Brother, as cameras are merely a cost-effective substitute for live police patrols.

    But the best, most effective, and least expensive surveillance can be had via privately placed cameras, on private homes, observing sections of public streets, on which there is neither a reasonable expectation of, nor right of, privacy. These are the cameras most likely to capture and record crimes like muggings, burglaries, sexual assaults, Car thefts, drug deals , and prostitution, and their publicised presence deters crime as well as aiding law enforcement in bringing perps to justice.

    Of course, there do have to be some privacy safeguards. Videos should be exempt from being subpoenaed in divorce an# other purely civil proceedings, and consenting adults engaging in certain activities in the privacy of their parked car should not be unduly intruded upon by this low-lux night-vision-enhanced technology. But we now live in a world where nearly everyone is equipped with some degree of audio and/or video recording capability, so why shouldn’t the high tech good guys gain the upper hand on the low tech bad guys in the name of public safety?


    • Local Broker

      “Of course, there do have to be some privacy safeguards. Videos should

      be exempt from being subpoenaed in divorce and other purely civil

      proceedings, and consenting adults engaging in certain activities in the

      privacy of their parked cars should not be unduly intruded upon by this

      low-lux night-vision-enhanced technology”

      http://www.foiadvocates.com/faq.html

      Slip and slide slope


      • Andrew Kent

        All the more reason to have mostly private surveillance cameras, which, while not specifically exempt from subpoenas (although videos need not be retained for any specified period), are not subject to FOIA requests. In any event, surveillance cameras of varying quality have been expanding exponentially throughout the city, and, because they help exonerate innocent persons of interest as much as they help apprehend and convict guilty suspects, are generally seen as a good thing, even by many civil libertarians.


        • Local Broker

          I am all for someone putting up security cameras on their personal property. I have no interest in being watched by the govt. For people who say if you are not doing anything wrong why should you care? Maybe those people wouldnt mind random searches of their homes once a week as well.


  • Ira

    The comments in this section are off base. I was the person who made the request for these cameras after the tragic and horrible death of Leiby. I don’t care who comes and goes in or out of Manhattan Beach but I do care with all my heart about protecting the thousands of children who use the playgrounds and beautiful beach. I also am fighting for cameras for every playground in New York City. And huge signs warning adults that they’re being photographed. If we can save one missing child or prevent a pedophile from accomplishing his evil than WE have accomplished a wonderful goal. Leiby’s death shook me to my core. I am grateful to Dov Hikind and Chaim Deutsch for these cameras. I was President of the Manhattan Beach Community Group at that time and I made the request for these cameras. They are only to be used in an emergency. No one is watching you. No one is concerned about your coming and goings if you are lawful. As for the Manhattan Beach hatred, I say use our efforts as models to protect your children. Everything should be for the children. Ira Zalcman, past President MBCG


    • Local Broker

      What happened was horrible and you have the right idea. Problem is that these cameras will not be used for what they are initially intended for. You want to put cameras in every park to stop predators which again is good but how does anyone guarantee thats all they will be used for?


    • Jimmy

      I do not get your point. Midwood is a Jewish neighborhood and not Manhattan Beach. There 90% Russians in Manhattan Beach, half of them are in organized crime. Deutch is more concerned about the kids of mobsters than the kids of his own people. The mob lining one’ s pockets speaks volumes. I hope that Deutch knows what he is in for with these ruthless animals.


    • Guest

      Won’t somebody please think of the children?!?!?!?!?!?

      This won’t stop the next kid from getting raped or cut up. This will only help us find the body sooner and is not worth expanding the surveillance state to achieve.