The Vail Daily’s recent coverage of the destruction of Flock cameras in Avon overlooked a critical detail: the overwhelming scale of local opposition to these devices. As the article mentioned, the Avon Police Department’s Facebook post generated over 18,000 comments, the majority of which were from out of state. The Vail Daily accepted this characterization from police and used it to discount the feedback as outside noise, rather than conducting their own investigation into what local residents actually thought. Comments in Eagle County Classifieds, a Facebook group where residents discuss local matters, tell the actual story of how the community feels. Posts there generated hundreds of comments, and I could not find any support for the cameras, a rare display of unity in a group infamous for “nonstop arguments.” Yet the Vail Daily didn’t examine local feedback. This is particularly notable because the Vail Daily regularly references Eagle County Classifieds and their reporters frequently use the forum to generate content. This shows that they are fully aware of what takes place there.
Local residents expressed deep concerns about the nature of these devices and what they represent. Brad Welsh, of Gypsum, wrote “a free nation is not one that spies on law abiding citizens. Public surveillance is a tool of oppression, not safety.” Shaun Bainbridge, of Edwards, noted “these companies come in as Trojan horses, to get local data, people information, direct marketing info.” Maria DeSimone, of Avon, stated plainly: “Our military men and women didn’t fight to protect our rights for them to be sold to private corporations to track our every move.” DeSimone is now circulating a petition calling for the cameras’ removal. Nicholas Webber, of Eagle, directly challenged the town’s leadership: “Town of Avon, perhaps serve your constituents who overwhelmingly oppose these cameras? How do you view your role in the community?” Franco Lopez, of Vail, added that “mass surveillance isn’t the answer to crime, the moral/ethical problems we face must be addressed by different means.” The Vail Daily’s reporting treated this destruction as a story about crime, not one of public distrust.
Institutions have employees trained to speak to the press. They put out press releases. The average citizen does not. This is why local media is important: They have the capacity to reach beyond official statements and connect directly with constituents to understand their perspectives. Unfortunately the Vail Daily chose not to make those personal connections.
Avon’s leadership had an opportunity to gauge public sentiment before approving the Flock cameras. The Town Council meeting where they were approved reportedly had low attendance, which is not unusual with inconveniently timed public meetings. Rather than treating low turnout as evidence of public indifference, the town could have conducted a survey or other outreach to understand how residents actually felt. It appears the town proceeded without making that effort. Now, with the cameras having been in place for about a year, Avon has a chance to reassess. Online commentary alone does not justify removing the cameras, but it does indicate that the town should undertake a thorough, transparent review of current public sentiment before deciding whether to continue the program.
I am not arguing whether Flock cameras are good or bad policy. I am saying that our system requires officials to listen to their constituents, and a local press to report when they do not. The Vail Daily failed on the second count. Avon’s leadership has so far failed on the first. The residents of Eagle County deserve media coverage that reflects their actual concerns, and elected officials who take those concerns seriously. We got neither here.
Support Local Journalism
Donate
Seth Levy lives in Gypsum.
