- Pros and Cons: Summary, Documents and Articles
- Councilmember Perspective
- Vincent Casalaina Perspective
Summary
Berkeley's rate of auto theft in 2003 was 50% greater than Oakland's and 100% greater than that of the state of California. Auto thefts increased in Berkeley 11% each year between 2000 and 2003.
Research has shown a correlation between the rate of penetration of unobservable vehicle protection systems and the reduction of auto thefts. In Boston a 5% penetration rate led to a 50% reduction in auto thefts. Over 90% of the cars with Lojack installed were returned within 24 hours.
The City of Berkeley could undertake a three year pilot project to widely publicize the installation of a Lojack style system in up to 5% of the cars.
| Pros | Cons |
|---|---|
|
|
Summary and analysis of pros and cons written by Vincent Casalaina.
Documents
- Installing unobservable vehicle protection systems (UVP) in Berkeley (the Proposal) File size: 0.4MB
- Appendices: Tables and charts supporting the proposal File size: 0.7MB
Referenced Articles
- Stop, Thief! by Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff File size: 0.4MB
- Lojack Benefits All Car Owners in its Area [digest*], by Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff File size: 0.4MB
* The complete article by Ayres and Levitt, Measuring Positive Externalities from Unobservable Victim Precaution: An Empirical Analysis of Lojack, can be purchased from the publisher's site.
Councilmember Gordon Wozniak's Perspective
Dear Berkeley Resident,
There are two major crime classifications: violent crime and property crime. For many years the Berkeley Police Department (BPD) has focused on reducing violent crime. As a result, Berkeley's violent crime rates are substantially lower than they were 20 years ago. Although there are further improvements to be made, Berkeley's violent crime rates are in the midrange of all California cities.
In contrast, Berkeley's property crime rates are extremely high, in the 99th percentile of all Californian cities. At a recent City Council work session, the BPD committed to reducing property crime in Berkeley by 10% per year for the next five years. To achieve this ambitious goal of reducing property crimes by 41%, the BPD will need additional funds, modern tools and the creative energies of its citizens.
One of the major components of property crime in Berkeley is auto theft. After having their car stolen, residents are often told that they must be more vigilant to prevent auto theft or that this is the price they pay for the privilege of living in the Athens of the West. I personally do not believe that we should allow auto thieves to control the agenda in Berkeley.
Recently, Vincent Casalaina put forth an innovative proposal for reducing auto theft. In the background to his proposal, Mr. Casalaina notes that Berkeley's auto theft rate is 50 % and 100% higher than the rates in Alameda County and California, respectively. Furthermore, the auto theft rate is not even across Berkeley, it tends to be substantially higher in the some neighborhoods. In fact, there is a strong inverse relationship between the average income in a census tract and the stolen car rate.
In 2003, over 1300 vehicles were stolen in Berkeley. The total value of these stolen vehicles was over $3.5 million. In addition, to the individual owner's loss, all vehicle owners suffer higher insurance premiums, since the cost of auto insurance in California is partially based on the auto theft rate in their zip code.
Several US cities have seen significant drops in auto thefts with the active promotion of unobservable vehicle protection (UVP) systems, such as Lojack which is a GPS based system that can be turned on after a car is stolen and whose signal can be tracked by the police to the stolen car. Typically, cars equipped with such systems are recovered within 24 hours of their being stolen. In Boston the number of auto thefts decreased by 50% with only a 5% market penetration of UVP systems.
Although the Berkeley Police Department has a 90% recovery rate of stolen vehicles, it often takes 5 weeks for recovery. When measuring the impact of an auto theft on the owner's life, the difference between 5 weeks and one day is immense. This is especially true for those who are making minimal incomes, where the loss of even an older vehicle can create a major financial crisis. Thus, a reduction in auto theft rates will have the greatest impact on Berkeley's most vulnerable residents.
To do something about auto theft, Berkeley needs to make combating auto theft a major priority. For auto theft to become a high priority, the City Council needs to hear from its citizens that they want the City to adopt and implement an auto theft reduction plan.
By adopting such a plan, the City will indicate that it is serious about implementing new strategies for reducing Berkeley's extremely high property crime rate, with auto theft as the first target. The approach proposed is the installation of currently available technology to fight auto theft with UVP devices. The implementation is designed so that action by individual residents is encouraged and the benefits of those actions accrue to the entire community. This is achieved by a combination of bulk purchasing and strong incentives to the victims of vehicle theft which most often are low income members of our community.
To implement a serious plan to reduce auto theft requires a modest financial commitment. The cost of incentive programs to equip 5% of the 70,000 vehicles in Berkeley with an unobservable protection devices is estimated to average $240,000/year for three years, for a total of $720,000. In the out years, it is estimated that $50,000/year would be required to offset attrition due to vehicles owners moving to another community. To give you some comparison, it costs over $200,000 to hire an additional policeman for a single year and the total BFD budget is about $45 million dollars.
I don't believe that Berkeley can afford to hire sufficient additional police to make a substantial reduction in auto thefts, but must instead invest in advanced technology that enables the existing police force to more effectively catch the auto thieves or deters thieves from plying their trade in Berkeley.
Please carefully read Mr. Casalaina's proposal and indicate your opinion by participating in the secret balloting and/or posting your opinion on this proposal. Finally, we welcome your suggestions on how to improve this proposal or alternative proposals for reducing property crime in Berkeley.
Sincerely,
Gordon Wozniak
Councilmember District 8
Vincent Casalaina's Perspective
Berkeley has a real problem with property crime. There is no part of Berkeley that has been untouched by our rising tide of property crime. We need the City of Berkeley to make a clear statement that the rate of property crimes must be reduced and that there are concrete steps that will be taken to achieve that goal.
Berkeley's rate of auto theft in 2003 is 50% greater than Oakland's and 100% greater than that of the state of California. Auto thefts increased in Berkeley 11% each year between 2000 and 2003. It's clear that what's being done now to reduce auto theft is not working and that Berkeley needs to look for innovative solutions, solutions that leverage our tax dollars to achieve the most reduction possible.
Auto theft hits hardest at working people. In 2004, California's top 10 stolen vehicles averaged 12 years old and were worth $2,750. These cars often represent people's primary means of getting to work and they are probably not covered by insurance against theft. When these cars are stolen, the theft severely disrupts the lives of those who depend on them.
I have proposed a community-based plan that has the potential to both reduce auto theft and to directly aid those residents who have suffered from this crime. The proposal asks the City to adopt as policy the installation of unobservable vehicle protection systems in cars in Berkeley.
Research in other communities by Ayers and Levitt on Lojack (the most widely used GPS based unobservable vehicle protection system) show a clear correlation between the rate of penetration of these systems and the reduction of auto thefts. This was particularly striking in the case of Boston where a 5% penetration rate led to a 50% reduction in auto thefts. Over 90% of the cars with Lojack installed were returned within 24 hours. Boston is not Berkeley, but such strong data deserves to be looked at and evaluated in terms of its impact on our problem.
My proposal applies the strengths that this research identifies to the issues surrounding auto theft in Berkeley. It has five major components.
- The City of Berkeley should establish as City policy, and widely publicize, the subsidizing of the installation of unobservable vehicle protection systems in existing vehicles in Berkeley.
- City of Berkeley policy should also encourage the purchase of an unobservable vehicle protection systems as an option when a new vehicle is purchased.
- For those residents of Berkeley who have had their vehicle stolen, the City of Berkeley should offer a substantial subsidy
toward the installation of a Lojack style system.
It's important to offer those whose vehicles have been stolen a way to quickly recover their vehicle if it were stolen a second time. It is also a way for the City to do something concrete to make sure the lives of those affected are not similarly disrupted in the future.Blue Book value of vehicle Owner pays City of Berkeley subsidy Under $1,500 $0 $350 $1.5K — 2.5K $49 $301 $2.5K — 3.5K $97 $253 $3.5K — 6.0K $146 $204 $6.0K — 10K $195 $155 $10K — 20K $243 $107 $20K + $292 $58
Other benefits of this approach include putting unobservable vehicle protection system directly into the areas that are most affected by auto theft. If crime moves to another area of town the installation of Lojack style systems follow immediately. - Berkeley should offer a smaller subsidy to all other residents of who chooses to install a Lojack style system.
Blue Book value of vehicle Owner pays City of Berkeley subsidy Under $1,500 $35 $315 $1.5K — 2.5K $70 $281 $2.5K — 3.5K $139 $211 $3.5K — 6.0K $209 $142 $6.0K — 10K $278 $72 $10K — 20K $348 $3 $20K + $417 -$67 - Once the funding for the subsidies of this proposal are exhausted, Berkeley should install Lojack style systems in any
resident's vehicle for $450. This one time only fee covers both hardware and installation.
This cost is still a $250 discount off the list price of the system and is possible through the City discount for mass purchasing.
The cost for the proposal is $250,000 per year for three years.
Installing unobservable vehicle protection systems will help to deter auto theft by providing the police with more chance of apprehension and will also aid the police in the return of vehicles that are stolen. The proposal, sponsored by Gordon Wozniak, went before Council on April 18th and was referred to the budget process. It will be up for further discussion in the City Manager's budget presentation May 16th.
What's unique about the unobservable vehicle protection systems is that it leverages individual action by citizens (the purchase and installation of Lojack) to achieve a greater good of the community (a community wide decrease in auto theft). Such community based initiatives don't look at solving the problem by moving it down the block to someone else's car. They look for ways that an individual's actions can make the entire community safer.