As the debate over video surveillance cameras in downtown State College continues, borough and university officials have mixed opinions about the issue. One of the main reasons for the idea of placing these cameras on the stretch of East Beaver Avenue coined "Beaver Canyon" is past disturbances in that area. Although some students and other opponents have objected, saying the cameras are an invasion of privacy, Penn State spokesman Tysen Kendig disagreed and explained why the university might fund half of the cost for the cameras.

With three riots in the span of two years, some actions need to be taken, he said. The cameras would help to identify the leaders of such uprisings, Kendig added. Penn State would pay half the cost of installing the cameras, which could cost the university up to $12,500, he said.

Kendig does not believe the installation of such cameras is an invasion of privacy rights. The cameras would not be monitored all the time, Kendig said.

"Students in State College walk by surveillance cameras all the time," he said. "Cameras monitor MAC machines and stores."

Many cities nationally and internationally have cameras monitoring public areas, Kendig added. "We're not infringing any rights or making any ground-breaking measures."

State College Police Chief Tom King, who is responsible for coming up with a proposal for the installation of the cameras, said there are many decisions still to be made in regards to who would handle the tapes and exactly where the cameras will be installed.

The cameras will face the streets and will not be able to see into any buildings, King said. The cameras would reduce criminal activities, King said. Only potential criminals in State College would be affected by this, as the cameras would be used to identify criminals if crimes occurred, he added.

Due to the property damaged and people injured during the riots on East Beaver Avenue, these measures are necessary, Kendig said. Those who obeyed the laws should not feel threatened by cameras, he said.

"Had students not been getting out of hand, something like this would not have happened," Kendig added.

State College Borough Council member James Meyer said the success of cameras on East Beaver Avenue will not necessarily lead to further surveillance in other parts of State College.

Cameras should be installed to protect students and residents of State College, Meyer said. The cameras would help to cut down the number of assaults in that area and also aid in deterring riots, he said.

"There is no one thing we can do to prevent riots -- it's a combination of things," Meyer said.

Council member Tom Daubert said the cons outweigh the pros in this situation. The main issue, Daubert said, is privacy rights. "I don't feel that 'big brother' should be looking over our shoulders," he said.

Most students are against video cameras, and the installation of the cameras will not discourage riots, Daubert said. "I talk to a lot of students, and I don't know anyone in the student population that thinks this is a good idea."

If the borough wants to have video footage of uprisings to use as evidence, handheld cameras would be more appropriate than the permanent video cameras that have been proposed, he added. To increase safety, police presence should also be heightened, despite costs, Daubert said. "This is not about costs."

Council member Elizabeth Goreham agreed with Daubert that the cameras are not the proper solution to the problem of violence in the "canyon."

"There's something about the tone of that block on Beaver Avenue that makes it prone to violence -- especially people drinking," Goreham said.

She suggested several alternative solutions to the problem, including changing the atmosphere of that area by planting trees, increasing the lighting, or by adding benches. Also, for safety, phone boxes linked directly to the police department should be placed on street corners in the area, she added. It is also important that people who live in that area be involved in discussions about the cameras, Goreham said. "I really think there should be a public hearing to discuss this topic."

The council should also take time to discuss the issue and consider all possible solutions to the crime problem in the area, she added. The council needs to discuss whether or not this proposal would really reduce crime, Goreham said.