Former Durham mayor: Bring back ShotSpotter | Opinion
Editor’s note: The writer is a former Durham mayor. He wrote in response to the Durham City Council’s Dec. 18 decision not to extend the contract for ShotSpotter, a gunshot surveillance program.
When I became mayor of Durham in 2001, the ShotSpotter gunshot surveillance program was being made available to communities. I was a strong advocate for it in Durham as another tool for law enforcement to use in solving and reducing gunshot related violence.
Much to my dismay, I was not able to get ShotSpotter installed before I left office in 2017. Had I run for office again in 2017 and been reelected, I would have still been a strong advocate for ShotSpotter and would have worked to get it installed.
According to the N&O, “ShotSpotter notifies 911 operators of gunfire detected by audio surveillance sensors in 3 square miles in east and southeast Durham, where the city says a third of all gunshot wounds occur.”
I believe it can assist in solving and reducing crime, especially crimes committed with guns.
I was glad to see that the Durham City Council eventually adopted ShotSpotter as one tool to fight crime — with an even better agreement than was proposed when I was advocating for it to be used.
I was deeply disappointed on Dec. 18 when Durham City Council members declined to extend ShotSpotter’s contract. The N&O reported that council members were heeding residents’ calls to discontinue the gunshot surveillance program.
I was also deeply disappointed in September 2022 when Durham Public Schools refused to allow ShotSpotter to install its gunshot-detecting sensors at schools.
My company, UDI/Community Development Corporation, permitted ShotSpotter to be installed on one of our buildings at Old North Five Points. Prior to it being installed, we had a person shoot into one of our buildings from across the street. Fortunately, no one was present in the building, otherwise there could have been serious injuries. I am sure that had ShotSpotter been installed at the time of that shooting, police would have been notified immediately.
I wonder how many of the people who complain of ShotSpotter being a tool that constitutes over policing of Black and brown communities actually live and work in those communities and are exposed to needless and senseless gunfire?
I appreciate that a study will be conducted by the Duke Law School’s Wilson Center for Science and Justice on the results of Durham’s one-year ShotSpotter pilot period. I await the results of that study and hope it results in a contract renewal. In the end, the price of ShotSpotter is a small price to pay if it in fact saves lives and prevents further injuries from gunshots.
When I was mayor, I constantly said that “good things are happening in Durham.” Our ability as a city to do more than one thing at a time to address our issues was why good things were happening in Durham. The same thing can be said of applying ShotSpotter as a tool to help combat crime, along with use of other community crime-reducing tools and programs. The use of ShotSpotter is not mutually exclusive to other programs.
While I was not in agreement with many of the votes taken by the previous City Council, I always maintained an open mind and gave credit for those votes that I thought were positive for the overall community. A vote for the return of ShotSpotter would be one of those positive votes.
William V. “Bill” Bell was mayor of Durham 2001–2017 and former chair of the Durham County Board of Commissioners.
