Reader says , Security for parking lots seems to be getting a lot of press lately. If you look at the statistics, roughly 80% of the criminal acts at shopping centers, strip malls and business offices occur in the parking lot. Lawyers make a good living off liability cases based on a lack of sufficient security measures or not taking “reasonable care” in the protection of employees and customers against criminal threats. The lawsuits often revolve around lack of sufficient lighting, surveillance and response. Once crime takes a foothold in an area it is difficult to break the trend, but there are some things you can do that can improve security, deter crime, reduce potential liability and make your customers feel safer. It’s interesting to note that where parking lot security has been implemented, customer use has actually increased because they feel safer. Increased customer use means increased profit which can be used to justify the increased cost related to any security improvements.
There are some general problems inherent in parking facilities that make the security of patrons and employees challenging. A criminal’s vehicle most likely will not be noticed in a parking facility. Also, parked vehicles provide a hiding place for a criminal and can block the distribution of lighting to the area that a criminal may be located. Security is more problematic for parking garages. Parking garages allow more vehicles to be parked on the same amount of land. The ability to see and be seen in one’s surroundings, known as natural surveillance, is reduced in parking garages. This is because parking garages can be partially or fully enclosed, elevated above ground, having multiple levels, or have ramps that provide access to the multiple floors of the facility.
Not every parking lot or garage is the same, nor do any have the same needs to mitigate risks.
It all boils down to a fundamental but complex word that underlies most all security mitigation and litigation: reasonable.
Did the building owner, facility manager, parking firm, chief security officer, security director or loss prevention manager provide a reasonable level of protection at parking lots and garages in the light of the history of incidents; type of business; history of clientele; physical location; application of procedures, policies, people and technology; and regarding immediate response and follow up reaction to situations that arise and alarm?
The details and the devil are both in “what is reasonable,” which can vary among types of businesses served by the parking facility, typical levels of security around the location, past actions taken, history of crime at that location as well as other hard and soft factors.
In addition to cameras placed within the garage footprint for safety, several 360-degree pan-tilt-zoom (PTZ) units were installed on the top of the exterior stair towers. Not only does parking management have access to the feeds at will, but the external video feed is shared with the police department, explains Gray. It allows them to take advantage of the view from one of the taller structures in the vicinity as well as eliminate a dead spot at a busy intersection.
Don’t overlook the human element of surveillance either. “Parking attendants are another indirect security measure,” Gray observes. “Having someone there 24/7 adds another level of comfort.” You can also tap them to pull double duty and monitor video between clients.
If your garage or lot is unattended, try scheduling frequent patrols, particularly in the evening. If you have contract security, you can also have guards available to escort occupants back to their vehicles.
Heres the plan. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
follow the money and follow where she goes to work after July 1.
She is not going anywhere July 1. I hear she is already sucking up to the remaining 2 Council Members. Stranger things have happen in Ridgewood.
The Village of Ridgewood parking garage will do so good the the surplus will be used to pay of the national debt.
Since ther are no public restrooms in town, expect the place to smell like a NYC subway station stairwell
The remaining two council members voted no when the vote was cast for the Village Manager. The three Amigos voted her in.
If the remaining two council members are favoring her now, they are hypocritical, it doesn’t make sense for them to favor her now as she pushed the agenda of the three amigos.
Personally, I am disenchanted with the whole lot of Ridgewood govt. We need a Trump.
8:26 am – Like the train tunnel?
Yup – the train tunnel AND the garage can now smell like filthy urinals. Can’t wait to get the hell out of here.
9:21- are you new in town? Mike and Susan were not on the council when Queen Roberta was hired. Tom and Bernie were the naysayers. Bernie has my vote if for no other reason than that.
Public Parking Garages are the most neglected , filthy and dangerous
structures made,Constructed with good intent and very bad follow up.
They become the center of drug dealing,prostitution and pan handling
and usually near transit centers they attract quite negative consequences as private rent a cops are basically paid loiters too with a radio to call for
the troops to cart off the overdoses and robert victims ..Across from an Historic Church…a disgrace,,PS OUT OF TOWNERS WONT COME EITHER..traffic willbe horrendous the first year of the HappyTimes PR.RESTUARANTS PACK UP TOO.VOR Left holding the bag..
8:26 Let them use Paul the Greeks bathrooms. He want this garage so bad it would be a small price to pay.
8.26. But the real facts are beyond Greek to him…
The legal analysis above fails to take into account NJ Title 59–Tort Claims Act. The Village will largely be immune from the sorts of claims described
Hoe about this 2:42
59:4-2. Liability generally
A public entity is liable for injury caused by a condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and that either:
a. a negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or
b. a public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under section 59:4-3 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose liability upon a public entity for a dangerous condition of its public property if the action the entity took to protect against the condition or the failure to take such action was not palpably unreasonable.
2:42… absolutely right…and above a “legal analysis”? Didn’t see the letterhead… is it Dewey Cheatem and Howe?