It started with a newspaper article in the Los Angeles Times.

Then, a tongue-lashing from cable news commentator Keith Olbermann, who dismissively mocked Lancaster residents as "citizen-patriots" who spied on each other.

"It's embarrassing," said Renée Baumgartner, a paralegal student and resident of the 500 block of South Duke Street.

The Los Angeles Times article, which runs today on Page A5, sparked a renewed debate last week over the desirability of a public surveillance system in the city, and encouraged opponents of the project to hold a protest in Binns Park on Saturday afternoon.

"We wanted to strike when the iron was hot," said Bill Adams, a Millersville resident who organized the rally.

Adams, a coordinator for the Lancaster Coalition for Peace and Justice, said 125 people showed up to protest.

"Big Brother is watching Lancaster," Mary Bonventre, an American Civil Liberties Union coordinator, told the crowd.

'Put it on a ballot'
But it really all started in 2004, when the Lancaster Community Safety Coalition installed the first cameras downtown.

The cameras arrived to near-universal praise from law enforcement officials and city government.

At first, there was little criticism of the cameras from residents. Many lauded the idea. By last December, 60 cameras had already been installed, and 105 more were announced by the LCSC.

But the Times article and Olbermann's send-up of Lancaster on MSNBC ignited a new firestorm of outrage over the cameras Saturday and in local online forums such as LancasterOnline.com's TalkBack.

Camera opponents accused the city and the LCSC of not making the approval process transparent enough.

Barry Russell, a city business owner who lives on Elm Street, accused the LCSC and its executive director, Joe Morales, of ramrodding the camera system through without approval or informed consent from city residents, a claim Morales denied in a phone interview Friday.

"It's totally incorrect," he said.

"We mailed over 15,000 postcard invitations in and around where the cameras were being installed," Morales said. "This process has to be transparent and open to community involvement — pro or con."

Protesters Saturday carried signs using language reminiscent of George Orwell's "1984."

And Christopher Maul wore a brown paper bag over his head to avoid the glare of a nearby camera.

"If the cops want to watch us, let them get out of their cruisers and do foot patrols on their own," said the West King Street resident, who has a camera installed across the street from his home. "The cameras are shameful and sinful."

Thomas McAndrews and Scott McAndrews stood together with signs likening Morales to Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler.

"What gives [the LCSC] the right to film me?" asked Scott McAndrews, of Brownstown. "The only person that I could think of who would have been proud to have cameras on every street corner is Adolf Hitler."

Morales said Friday that he didn't mind that people were protesting the camera system.

"We want and encourage community involvement and perspectives from varying points of view," he said.

Renée Baumgartner, a volunteer with U.S. Rep. Ron Paul's (R-Texas) Campaign for Liberty, said she'd gladly sacrifice her security for personal liberty.

Baumgartner, who said her car radio was stolen last week, still didn't think that cameras would be a good idea, even after she was told the theft probably wouldn't have happened had a camera been installed on the street.

"I'd rather not have the cameras," she said. "I'll deal with a traditional investigation."

Quoting Benjamin Franklin, she said: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither."

After being told that cameras had been helpful in capturing criminals or aiding police investigations, protesters Saturday still weren't convinced.

 "Do Turkey Hill surveillance cameras stop Turkey Hill robberies?" Thomas McAndrews, a Lititz resident, asked.

Camera footage assisted the prosecution of Abdul Walton, who was convicted of killing Tyquan Hall on South Prince Street in 2007.

"Did the cameras save a life? It puts the guy in prison, but you're still dead," McAndrews said.

And on Friday, city police said footage taken from one of the cameras helped corroborate witness descriptions of a shooting on the 100 block of North Ann Street.

"Just because it helps solve crimes doesn't mean it's a good idea," said Matt Holden, a Republican candidate for city council. "A 7 p.m. curfew would reduce crime, and that's not a good idea."

Protesters on Saturday said they may be inclined to support the camera system if it was put to a popular vote.

"Put it on a ballot and let people vote," McAndrews said. "Let the majority rule."

But Morales believes the majority of city residents are already for the camera system.

"In many areas of the city, they're being installed at the request of citizens," he said. "The No. 1 question we get is 'When are we going to get a camera?' "

'Sound and fury'
Proponents of the camera system deflected criticisms last week, dismissing notions that the cameras represent the beginning of Big Brother.

"People are running around with '1984' and Orwell," said Lancaster Mayor Rick Gray. "It's full of sound and fury — but when you get down to the facts, we're not spying on our citizens."

Gray, a former defense attorney, has continually supported the $3 million camera system, which is funded largely by private businesses and donations.

The cameras, Gray argues, reduce crime in a city unable to afford more police protection.

"It does save police resources," he said. "We could station 165 officers around the city instead of cameras, it would be better — if we could afford it."

Gray told the Lancaster New Era last week that the city is currently paying more to provide police and fire services than it's getting back in tax revenue. He insisted that the cameras are not meant to replace well-trained police officers.

"It results in savings and better law enforcement," he said.

The LCSC is a quasi-public nonprofit agency that monitors the camera system from its headquarters on Conestoga Street.

Gray said he understands people's objections to the camera system, but thinks their concerns are overstated. He said he hasn't received any specific complaints about the cameras or their operators so far.

"We watch the LCSC closely and they watch themselves closely," Gray said. "If I thought we were spying on private things that had nothing to do with criminals, I'd do everything to shut it down.

"That's not the case."

In hindsight, Joe Morales said he regretted describing Lancaster as the "most-watched city" in the country.

"I'm not even sure it's accurate," Morales said. "There was too much emphasis on that in the [Los Angeles Times] article. It has a sinister connotation.

"If it was intended to fan the flames of debate, it was successful."

---

Paul Franz is a Sunday News staff writer. Contact him at pfranz@lnpnews.com or at 295-5063.