If you've been following my "Political Neophyte Goes to City Hall" content, you know I try to break down the local government decisions that affect our daily lives. This week, I need to talk about something that could fundamentally change how much privacy we have in our own community: Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs).
Our city commission has an agenda item tonight at 6p about entering a contract with Flock Safety for these cameras, and after diving deep into the research, I'm convinced this is a terrible deal for Bay City. Let me walk you through why.
What We're Actually Talking About
First, let's be clear about what ALPRs really do. These aren't just traffic cameras that catch speeders. Flock Safety's system photographs every single license plate that drives past, stores that information along with the exact time and location, and keeps it in a massive database that gets shared with law enforcement agencies and corporations across the country.
Think about your daily routine: driving to work, picking up groceries, going to the doctor, visiting family. With these cameras, every one of those trips gets recorded and stored. Not because you're suspected of anything - just because you drove past a camera. What if you were attending a political meeting or a protest?
The company will tell you this is about "public safety," but the numbers tell a different story.
The Numbers Don't Lie: This Technology Doesn't Work
Here's the most important fact you need to know: A comprehensive study of California's ALPR systems found that out of 1.4 billion license plate scans, only 0.05% were actually relevant to any criminal investigation.
Let me put that in perspective: That means 99.95% of the data collected was from completely innocent people going about their daily lives. It's like installing a surveillance camera in every Bay City resident's home just in case someone might commit a crime someday.
Even worse, a 16-year study in Piedmont, California found that their ALPR system generated just 26 investigative leads from over 2 million scans. That’s a success rate so low that researchers said it was "equivalent to random chance."
Meanwhile, Austin, Texas just canceled their Flock contract after the system scanned 113 million license plates in one year but only resulted in 165 arrests. That's a success rate of 0.0014%. They were literally paying thousands of dollars to spy on innocent residents while solving almost no crimes.
It's Expensive and We Have Better Options
Speaking of thousands of dollars, let's talk cost. Flock Safety charges $2,500-$2,800 per camera annually, with total costs reaching up to $25,000 per camera when you factor in installation and first-year expenses. For a city like Bay City, we're talking about a significant chunk of our public safety budget (a department which already accounts for more than half of our annual budget).
What could we do with that money instead? Research shows that investments in better lighting, cleaner streets, and community engagement generate $5.30 in value for every $1 spent and reduce violent crime by 6-12%. Community violence intervention programs cost about $10,800 per participant annually and actually address root causes of crime.
If we want safer streets, proven infrastructure improvements like better crosswalks, speed bumps, and improved lighting work better than surveillance cameras and cost a fraction of the price.
Your Data Doesn't Stay Local
Here's where it gets really concerning for Bay City families. Even if our local police promise to use this responsibly, Flock Safety shares data across thousands of law enforcement agencies and corporate customers (I work for The Home Depot by day, and this information is used ostensibly to track shoplifters). That means information about your movements could end up with:
Federal immigration enforcement (ICE)
Out-of-state police departments
Federal agencies investigating everything from tax issues to political protests
Just this year, we learned that California police illegally shared ALPR data with ICE and Border Patrol over 100 times in a single month, despite state laws prohibiting it. Sandy Springs, Georgia used their Flock cameras to help ICE with immigration enforcement. And perhaps most disturbing, a Texas police officer used the Flock network to track a woman across 83,000+ cameras because her husband reported being "concerned" about her seeking reproductive healthcare.
This isn't theoretical - this is happening right now across the country.
Flock Controls Everything, Not Bay City
Here's a detail that should alarm every Bay City taxpayer: Flock Safety's contracts give them the right to add new features and integrations whenever they want, without asking our permission.
The contract language literally gives Flock "nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free" license to use our data. That means they can profit from information about Bay City residents' movements forever, and we can't stop them.
Even if our city commission tries to add privacy protections, Flock can integrate their cameras with facial recognition systems, combine our data with other surveillance platforms, or share it with companies like Palantir (which is in the process of compiling a massive database on every U.S. resident) - all without coming back to ask Bay City's permission.
Other Cities are Saying “No” and Winning
The good news? Communities across the country are successfully fighting back against these surveillance contracts, and they're winning.
This year alone:
Austin, Texas ended their Flock contract after community pressure revealed the system's failures
Denver, Colorado unanimously rejected a $600,000+ contract extension, with council members calling it "mass surveillance"
San Marcos, Texas voted 5-2 to reject camera expansion after over 5 hours of public testimony
What these victories have in common is organized residents who showed up to educate their elected officials about the real costs and risks. When people understand what's actually at stake, they reject mass surveillance.
What This Means for Bay City Families
Let's bring this home to our community. Bay City is a place where people know their neighbors, where we value privacy and fiscal responsibility. These cameras would fundamentally change that character.
Do we want our teenagers tracked every time they drive to work or school? Do we want visiting family members from other states to have their movements recorded in federal databases? Do we want to spend tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars on technology that has proven ineffective while our city has real infrastructure needs?
I don't think that's who we are as a community.
Questions Our City Needs to Answer
Before any vote happens, we should be able to answer these questions in writing:
How much will this actually cost over 5 years, including all fees and maintenance?
What specific public safety problem are we trying to solve, and how will we measure whether ALPRs actually address it?
How many law enforcement agencies will have access to Bay City residents' data?
What new features can Flock add without coming back to the city commission for approval?
If we want to prevent our data from being shared with federal agencies or corporations, can we contractually prohibit that and how would we enforce it?
What happens to all the data about Bay City residents if we cancel the contract?
Have we analyzed the cost-effectiveness of ALPRs versus proven alternatives like improved street lighting or traffic calming measures?
If we can't answer these questions with specifics, we shouldn't be voting to approve this contract.
What You Can Do Right Now
This isn't a done deal. We can stop this if Bay City residents make their voices heard:
Before the meeting:
Contact your city commissioner and ask them to vote “no”
Share this information with neighbors, family, and friends
Join me at the commission meeting tonight if possible
At the meeting:
Approach the podium during public comment and share your concerns
Ask the tough questions I've outlined above
Bring neighbors - numbers matter
After the meeting:
If they try to rush this through, demand a dedicated public hearing
Keep pressure on commissioners who might be wavering
Stay engaged - these decisions affect all of us
The Bottom Line
Flock Safety is asking Bay City to pay premium prices for mass surveillance technology that doesn't work, violates our privacy, and enriches a corporation at our community's expense. Meanwhile, we could invest that same money in proven public safety measures that actually make our neighborhoods safer while respecting residents' rights.
This isn't about being "anti-police" or "soft on crime." This is about being smart with taxpayer money and preserving the privacy and freedom that make Bay City a great place to live.
Our city commission works for us, not for surveillance companies. Let's make sure we remember that.
I hope you'll join me.
Regular Meetings
6:00 p.m.
1st and 3rd Monday of each month
City Hall Commission Chambers
301 Washington Avenue
Bay City, MI 48708
Want to stay informed about local government decisions that affect your daily life? Subscribe to "Political Neophyte Goes to City Hall" and follow along as we navigate city politics together. Because democracy works best when we're all paying attention.
Key Resources:
This post contains analysis based on public records, academic research, and reporting from credible news sources. All statistics and claims are cited to original sources.
As always, the content herein is wholly my own and in no way necessarily represents the views or opinions of the City Manager, city staff, vendors, nor fellow commissioners or the mayor.
Thanks for posting, Christopher. I’ll be listening in on the meeting tonight and hope there is a resounding no.