How about a camera in the Mayor's office?

Facing another alleged budget shortfall of some $6 million and a request for a $45+ million loan, along with 14 failed arbitrations being dragged out in the courts with very little chance of success and a ticking clock on the Anglican American lawsuit, the Doherty administration is still forging ahead with a plan to install security cameras in the downtown.

While the $250,000 price tag is a drop in the bucket against the deficits the Doherty administration has created, critics maintain the cameras are a waste of money needed elsewhere. In fact, in Baltimore, where Scranton officials first saw the cameras in action, officials agree the cameras do little to help criminal invesigations.

According to an article by Matthew Cella, of the Washington Times, reported in a post on Officer.com, a law enforcement site, "Baltimore, for example, set up about 80 cameras in May 2005 in high-crime neighborhoods. Volunteers and retired law-enforcement personnel monitor the images in real time, but the cameras have not helped put criminals behind bars."

"Generally, the State's Attorney's Office has not found them to be a useful tool to prosecutors," office spokeswoman Margaret Burns said. "They're good for circumstantial evidence, but it definitely isn't evidence we find useful to convict somebody of a crime."

Cella's article also notes Chicago installed more than 35 cameras in July of 2003 and had its first success- breaking up a drug deal- in February of 2005- 19 months later.

Considering the cost of the Cameras, $250,000, the costs of monitoring and the city's history of budgeting maintenance funds for its projects once the ribbon has been cut, the screens of the cameras have the distinct advantage of being expected to do something in the next three to five years that Scranton's budget can't hope to accomplish in thirty to fifty years-

Fading to black.

How long can we continue to borrow, give away and pour money into projects even experts say are unnecessary, overpriced or, in this case, useless? The borrowing in the last few years is astounding and will hamper many projects in the future because we will have reached the limits of our debt-servicing abilities.

Is there no limit to the spending of this administration? What happens when we reach that ceiling and the powers that be refuse any more feeding at the debt trough? Where will the administration's spending pigs feed?

Taxes.

It's time City Council refuses to pay for one more Doherty gimmick. Without a loan, the results of years of adding new administration members, breaking contracts, giving raises to his staff, backroom deals and arbitrating instead of negotiating will result in higher taxes.

Doherty brought us to this point. Now he has to pay the bus driver.

It's inevitable. It's time.

Chris Doherty, it's your turn to pay to play.