Belleville affected an immediate drop in vandalism by installing high-intensity lighting in its central business district. Over in Amburg, meanwhile, police bicycle patrols have yet to make an impact on vandalism there. Clearly, lighting is the cure for crime, not cops on bikes. Right? The President’s recommendation, upon even a few minutes reflection, leaves one with far more questions than it even begins to answer.
　　First, to give that gentleman his due though, it looks like lighting really did correlate with—and probably cause—the vandalism decline in Belleville. This is not surprising. Vandals do prefer darkness, save for the most brazen in the least well-ordered cities. Still we need to ask whether Belleville ONLY installed lighting? Or was this in conjunction with existing police patrols? Diogenes’ lantern cannot find an honest man without Diogenes; street lighting doesn’t help catch vandals unless someone is there watching.
　　Granting, too, that vandalism in Belleville went down, we need to ask how much. How much, too, did the lighting cost? Is the savings likely to be realized from a few broken windows to offset the cost of lamps and poles and electricity?
　　Looking over to Amburg, the President of the Chamber of Commerce dolefully informs us that vandalism there has remained constant in spite of those newfangled and politically correct bicycle patrols. Yet is that news necessarily bad? Was vandalism on the rise before the patrols and has it stabilized since? That is one construction that can be put on the words “remained constant.” Is it the correct one?
　　In addition, we must ask, were the police patrols even aimed at vandals? In some cities, like Seattle, nighttime bicycle patrols are under orders to target felonies and ignore petty crime. In that place’s narrow lanes and poor lighting, a bicycle is a fast and silent way of fighting serious crime. The thinking is that, if serious crime is on the defensive, the city’s well-being will tend to discourage the mindset that gives rise to the relatively minor problem of vandalism. So too in Amburg? Have the police patrols there taken any kind of bite out of real criminal activity?
　　The President declares that high-intensity lighting in Amburg will significantly reduce crime in the city. Where is the evidence that so doing had any such effect in Belleville? We only know that vandalism there dropped. We know nothing of what happened to felony rates in that city. Why assume an effect here that was never caused there? The President seems confused by his own loose use of language, equating vandalism with crime.
　　Even allowing lighting to be desirable here in Amburg, do we need it everywhere? The suburbs, for instance, often feature poor lighting and any city’s lowest crime rates. Low crime neighborhoods closer in might get by with their existing lighting. What evidence is there, anyway, that high-intensity lighting prevents entire classes of crime like drug-dealing, armed robbery, internet fraud, and high-treason? True, the President does not say it does. But it is wise to recall at the outset that lights are but one limited tool. It would be unwise to get one’s hopes up too high.
　　Last of all, what does a large-scale installation of high-intensity lighting cost? How does this compare with the price tag of existing bicycle patrols? (The police officers have to be paid anyway; the sole expenditure was the bicycles, a few tire pumps, and a tire-repair kit.) It could be the city is going to invest heavily and all in avoiding some unsightly graffiti. It needs asking, why not a program of limited high-intensity lighting, backed up by those swift ‘ n silent police bicycle patrols?