Honolulu’s public parks should be a refuge for residents — sanctuaries where all can gather, play and relax. But, as with many metropolitan areas, these recreational spaces have increasingly become hotbeds for crime, too often of a violent nature. In response, the City Council is rightly mulling the deployment of camera surveillance systems, similar in purpose to those used as part of a now-hobbled project launched in 2024, that would serve as a deterrent and ease the burden of a strained police force.
Councilmember Radiant Cordero introduced Resolution 128 in April, calling for a one-year pilot program under Honolulu Police Department purview to evaluate the efficacy of overt video monitoring at public parks. The key word here is “overt,” as evidenced by no less than 11 mentions in the resolution’s title, preamble and text. Devices are to be clearly visible, with appropriate signage to inform visitors that they will be monitored when entering a specified secure area. This is a proper step toward alleviating privacy concerns.
Surveillance has always been a dirty word in this country. Many Americans bristle at the notion of government surrogates snooping on their day-to-day, and using their tax dollars to do it. This is, of course, for good reason. Every free society must expect a certain level of individual autonomy. However, there is also an expectation that such rights might be suspended or curbed when crime runs rampant. The balance between freedom and order is a delicate one to strike.
With serious deficiencies in HPD’s ranks, and a strapped city budget, there is little recourse but to turn to the most effective and cost-efficient solution to thwart would-be ne’er-do-wells. And at this moment, remote monitoring is the answer. It might be cold comfort for some, but video surveillance has proved effective at government installations and private businesses, and more recent availability of mobile units with remote monitoring has expanded capabilities and options. Whether the proposed cameras will be fixed or mobile remains unclear, as the legislation refers to them only as video monitoring devices.
Technology aside, there is a definite need to fill. Earlier this month, a playground at Wahiawa District Park was left melted and charred in an apparent act of arson, destroying nearly $121,000 in renovations that were just completed in March. Resolution 128 cites reports of gunfire at Ala Moana Regional Park and violent crime at parks operated by the city Department of Parks and Recreation, while Cordero pointed to a string of break-ins at a park in her District 7, covering Kalihi Kai to Waimalu Kai.
Cordero did not attach a price to the pilot project, instead handing off that responsibility to the directors of Parks and Recreation, and Information Technology. And there are no equivalents currently in operation on Oahu. A previous pilot project to position security trailers at four popular scenic spots in East Oahu was hamstrung last year due to vendor letdowns and subsequent delays in finding a new provider. Though mobile video platforms did roll out as part of the $65,000 effort, those systems have been dormant since at least November. HPD hopes to nail down a new vendor by June 30. Still, months of crime-fighting statistics might have been gleaned from the program to inform the Council’s new initiative. Unfortunate.
If Resolution 128 passes muster — and it should — careful study and planning must be assumed to right-size the rollout. A backup vendor should be lined up; one stalled project is enough. And diligent evaluation of video monitoring processes and impacts must be conducted both during the pilot period and when it concludes, ensuring that officials can extend or expand what could be a vital service without interruption.
