Cheverly public hearing on stop‑sign cameras draws sharp split over safety and surveillance

Cheverly — At a public hearing on a proposed stop‑sign camera pilot, residents and council members split sharply over whether the devices would improve safety or amount to intrusive, revenue‑driven surveillance.

Corporal Declan Becker of the Cheverly Police Department told the council the department has run a trial of stop‑sign cameras for several months under a recent Maryland legislative change permitting such devices and said the pilot yielded "good success" with the vendor. Becker said the town had not finalized payment terms but described the likely model as lookup/percentage based and said the department’s goal is to make the program cost neutral.

Several residents urged caution. Matthew Creighton, a Ward 3 resident, said he opposed the cameras for three reasons: he described them as a potential "hidden tax" on Cheverly residents, questioned their effectiveness because mailed tickets lack in‑the‑moment deterrence, and said drivers using temporary or fraudulent plates could evade enforcement. Creighton cited a Washington, D.C., example he said showed a large jump in ticketing and high short‑term revenue; those figures were presented as his research and not independently verified.

Amylaine Johnson, a Ward 6 resident, opposed installations proposed near St. Ambrose and Gladys Naysfeldt Elementary, asking how cameras would distinguish school crossing guards or church staff directing traffic, how many cameras and which locations are planned, what the devices will cost, how revenue would be earmarked, and what processes will exist for contesting tickets. Johnson said the town appeared to be "rushing through" the decision and urged the council to delay any vote.

Other speakers took different positions. Barbara Solts of Ward 2 praised the vendor presentation and said the cameras were one tool to change driving behavior; Chris Reener of Ward 4 said public safety should be the town’s priority and expressed support even if revenue increased. A Ward 3 resident identified only as Michelle urged rejection on privacy grounds, saying she had "chilling questions" about who would collect and store data and whether it could be shared or sold to outside agencies.

Council members pressed for more specifics. Members asked whether the stop‑sign project would affect existing community camera rebate programs (Becker said it would not), whether officers would continue to enforce intersections equipped with cameras, whether cameras could be turned off at certain hours (for example, during school crossing times), and how long typical contracts last and how quickly a pilot could be ended. Becker and council members agreed the vendor can provide the requested timing, placement and violation‑rate data; the council asked that that information be brought to a forthcoming work session for fuller discussion.

Council member Breiner reiterated concerns about surveillance and suggested forming a resident advisory group to review surveillance technologies. No formal vote on adopting a camera program was taken at the hearing; the council moved to discuss the matter in the next work session. The meeting adjourned, and members noted they will reconvene at 7 p.m. for the scheduled budget meeting.

What’s next: The council asked staff to request detailed pilot data from the vendor — including camera locations, dates of operation and violation statistics — and to place the topic on a future work session agenda for further resident input and policy discussion.