Philadelphia City council?s committee on public safety, chaired by Councilman Curtis Jones Jr., conducted hearings June 8 on a bill and a resolution that would increase surveillance cameras in the city, especially in commercial corridors and at establishments that serve alcohol.

The loss of Shane Montgomery may spur a legacy to help save others.

Bill 15006, dubbed the Shane Montgomery Bill, would require every special occupancy licensee to install a surveillance camera outside each public exit. Montgomery caused a stir last year, disappearing over the holiday after going out with friends on Manayunk?s Main Street. His body was recovered several weeks later in the Schuylkill River.

A break in the investigation came from footage from a nearby surveillance camera.

The search efforts for Montgomery brought together the Roxborough-Manayunk community in many ways and involved Philadelphia police and an FBI Special Task Force. Countless volunteers combed the neighborhood.

Resolution 150107 would explore ways to increase the number of surveillance cameras throughout the city in order to reduce crime and promote public safety. According to Jones, there are currently 4,000 cameras throughout the city connected to the city?s Real Time Crime Center; more than 100 of these cameras are located in Center City alone.

?No one wants to invade, in ?1984? terms, peoples? privacy,? said Jones.

According to Jones, the ultimate goal is to keep people safe. Jones said that since Montgomery, there have been other crimes where the aid of nearby cameras could have been useful, yet no cameras were available. Jones cited a rape that occurred at a Center City parking garage, not far from City Hall, as an example.

?Simply put, surveillance cameras serve as an effective deterrent to criminal activity and greatly assist investigators in solving crimes that occur,? said Michael Resnick, director of public safety for the City of Philadelphia.

Shane?s mother, Karen Montgomery, spoke before the committee in support of the bill. Karen Montgomery was supported by family members Patrick Verbrugghe Marianne Wittman, Timothy Wittman and Thomas LaCorte.

?This bill would not have changed the fact that Shane was dead,? said Jones, who admitted that Bill 15006 was spurred by Shane Montgomery?s disappearance.

?One thing that shocked and frustrated us was the lack of video surveillance along this bustling commercial corridor where many businesses are geared toward late night activities,? said Karen Montgomery. ?I have no delusions that any camera would have saved my Shane; however, I am convinced without a doubt that had video shown his direction upon leaving his last stop, the suffering endured during searches without direction would have lessened. I am also convinced that video cameras are of enormous benefit to the business owners themselves as cameras could provide valuable information and protection to businesses, patrons and law enforcement authorities. The financial impact to a business could be far outweighed by the benefits of installed cameras and improvement to public safety.?

Shanin Specter, son of the late U.S. Sen. Arlen Spector and former Councilwoman Joan Specter, testified on behalf of his firm?s client: the Center City garage rape victim.

?It is shocking that even in 2015 garages are not required to have cameras or security patrols,? said Specter.

Despite testimony from the city?s commerce department regarding the Business Security Camera Program, which would help businesses defray the cost of installation up to $3,000, businesses were critical of the bill and resolution. Some local businesses in Manayunk took to Facebook to express their displeasure.

Sande Friedman, testified on behalf of the Philadelphia Chapter of the Pennsylvania Restaurant and Lodging Association.

?While we appreciate the spirit behind Councilman Jones? bill, we have numerous concerns over the intentions, cost and implementation of such a program,? said Friedman, who works for Tria restaurant group, which has four locations in the city.

According to Friedman, the bill turns a business decision into a government mandate, primarily targeting the hospitality industry in particular. Friedman questioned whether it was right to force a business within another commercial building to install cameras. Friedman further questioned whether there was adequate funding for the Business Security Camera Program.

?There are many places that use cameras,? said Friedman. ?Yet in all of the use of cameras, it is not government mandating it. It is the choice of the business, municipality, transportation service, etc. This proposal doesn?t have industry support, but, more importantly, it does not have public support.?

Jones said before the hearing that he did not expect the bill to move out of committee but introduction of such legislation is important to begin the dialogue.

?We don?t want to be onerous to small businesses but we want to ensure their customers a reasonable degree of safety,? said Jones.