Speaking Templates

Good evening, Council members. My name is [YOUR NAME] and I live in [NEIGHBORHOOD]. I am here today to respectfully but firmly oppose any expansion of automated license plate readers, Flock cameras, or facial recognition technology in our city.

The arguments for this technology are always the same: public safety, catching criminals, protecting children. But the data does not support these claims at the scale proponents suggest. First, the cost. Flock camera contracts typically run between $2,500 and $4,000 per camera per year, plus installation and maintenance. Cities our size have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on these systems with little to show for it in terms of actual violent crime reduction. A 2022 study by the George Mason University Mercatus Center found that license plate readers had no statistically significant effect on violent crime rates in the jurisdictions studied. Second, the error rate. Facial recognition technology misidentifies Black and Brown people at rates five to ten times higher than white people, according to NIST testing. In a city council meeting in Detroit, Robert Williams was wrongfully arrested in front of his family based on a faulty facial recognition match. That is not public safety. That is a civil rights violation waiting to happen. Third, function creep. These systems are sold for "catching stolen cars" but are inevitably used for immigration enforcement, protest monitoring, and tracking political opponents. The data does not stay local. Flock Safety shares data with hundreds of other jurisdictions and federal agencies through its "Total Network." Once the infrastructure is built, the scope expands silently. Finally, the Constitution. The Supreme Court in Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), ruled that warrantless access to historical cell-site location data violates the Fourth Amendment. Automated tracking of every vehicle entering and leaving our city is precisely the kind of mass surveillance the Framers feared. We do not need to live in a surveillance state to be safe.

I urge this council to reject any proposal to expand automated surveillance in our city. If safety is the goal, invest in streetlights, community programs, and mental health services — not cameras that watch innocent people. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is [YOUR NAME] and I am a resident of [NEIGHBORHOOD]. I am here to express serious concerns about the proposed data center development and to ask this council to reject any tax abatements or zoning variances for this project.

Data centers are not the economic development miracle their promoters claim. They are massive industrial facilities that consume extraordinary resources while providing minimal local benefit. Water consumption is the first concern. A single large data center can use between 1 million and 5 million gallons of water per day for cooling. In a time of worsening drought and water scarcity, handing millions of gallons to a facility that employs fewer than 50 people is indefensible. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has documented that data center water usage is rising rapidly as facilities get larger and denser. Electrical grid strain is the second. Data centers can consume as much electricity as a small city — 50 to 100 megawatts for a single campus. That strain raises rates for everyone else and increases reliance on fossil fuel plants. Google, Microsoft, and Amazon have all been cited for dramatically underestimating their energy demands during permitting, only to request massive grid upgrades after construction begins. Jobs are the third issue. Data centers are highly automated. A facility the size of multiple football fields may employ only 30 to 50 people, most of them technicians brought in from out of state. The promised 'hundreds of jobs' are construction jobs that last 18 months and then disappear. Tax abatements make this even worse. These facilities routinely demand 10- to 20-year property tax exemptions, meaning they use our water, our power, our roads, and our emergency services while paying nothing for them. The schools lose funding. The fire department loses funding. The residents pick up the tab. Finally, noise and quality of life. Data centers emit a constant low-frequency hum from cooling systems and backup generators. Residents living within a half-mile report sleep disruption, anxiety, and property value declines. Once built, these facilities operate 24/7 for decades. This is not economic development. It is resource extraction with a tech logo.

I ask this council to reject the data center proposal and any associated tax breaks. If a company needs our water and our power, they can pay full taxes like every other business. Thank you.

Good evening, Council members. My name is [YOUR NAME], a resident of [NEIGHBORHOOD]. I am here to oppose the rezoning request for [PROJECT NAME/ADDRESS] and to ask this council to prioritize existing residents over developer profits.

This rezoning proposal may be framed as 'growth' or 'progress,' but the reality is that it will degrade the quality of life for thousands of current residents while providing little public benefit. Infrastructure strain is my first concern. Our roads, sewers, and schools are already at capacity. Adding hundreds of new units without concurrent infrastructure investment means more traffic, longer emergency response times, and overcrowded classrooms. The developer's traffic study assumes ideal conditions and does not account for existing congestion. We have seen this pattern before: approve first, address infrastructure never. Affordable housing is the second concern. Rezoning to allow higher density is often sold as a way to create affordable housing. But the actual units built are overwhelmingly market-rate luxury apartments. Inclusionary zoning requirements, if they exist in this proposal, are typically too weak to matter — often 5% or 10% 'affordable' units in a building where the other 90% are unaffordable to the median local worker. That is not affordability. That is displacement with a fig leaf. School overcrowding is a direct consequence. Each new residential unit brings children. The school district has not been consulted on this rezoning and has no budget to build new classrooms. The burden falls on existing schools, existing teachers, and existing students. Finally, the process itself. These rezoning requests are often decided before the first public hearing. Developers meet with council members privately, make campaign contributions, and secure support before residents even know a proposal exists. That is not public participation. That is theater. I am asking this council to table this rezoning until a genuinely independent traffic study, school impact assessment, and infrastructure plan are completed and made public.

Growth is not inherently good. Growth that strains our infrastructure, displaces our neighbors, and enriches out-of-town developers at our expense is bad growth. Vote no on this rezoning. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is [YOUR NAME] and I live in [NEIGHBORHOOD]. I am here to ask this council to reject the proposed police budget increase and to reinvest those funds in proven crime prevention strategies.

I want to be clear: this is not anti-police. This is pro-evidence. And the evidence overwhelmingly shows that simply hiring more police officers does not reduce crime as effectively as investing in community services. A comprehensive 2020 study published in the journal Science Advances analyzed 60 years of data and found that every dollar spent on social services and education reduced crime more than a dollar spent on policing. Mental health services, substance abuse treatment, youth employment programs, and stable housing all have stronger correlations with crime reduction than patrol officer headcount. Our city currently spends [X]% of its general fund on policing while spending [Y]% on mental health services. When someone is having a mental health crisis, we send armed officers. That is expensive, dangerous, and often tragic. Cities like Denver, Colorado, and Eugene, Oregon, have implemented civilian crisis response teams that handle mental health calls without police involvement — and the results are remarkable. Denver's STAR program reduced crime in its pilot district and cost a fraction of a police response. Police misconduct settlements are another hidden cost. Cities across the country pay millions annually in lawsuit settlements for police brutality, wrongful arrests, and civil rights violations. That money comes from the same budget that could fund after-school programs, homeless services, and job training. I am asking this council to freeze the police budget at current levels and redirect the proposed increase to: mental health crisis response teams; youth employment and mentorship programs; affordable housing and homelessness services; and violence interruption programs staffed by community members. These investments make us safer. The data proves it.

Vote no on the police budget increase. Vote yes on evidence-based community investment. Thank you.