# Empirical Report: Surveillance Metaphors and Municipal Wealth ## A Deborah Stone Narrative Analysis of Flock Safety ALPR Deliberations (2025–2026) **Jose Marichal, Ph.D. — Technology & Society Working Group** **Dataset:** Harvard Dataverse LocalView V3 + U.S. Census Bureau ACS 5-Year (2018–2022) **Sample:** 3,581 verbatim deliberative snippets across 852 municipal meetings in 270 jurisdictions nationwide **Status:** Completed Analysis --- ### Executive Summary & Core Empirical Findings Drawing on Deborah Stone’s theory of policy symbols (*Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making*, Ch. 6: "Symbols: Metaphors"), this study links national transcripts of city council deliberations on Flock Safety Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) contracts directly to U.S. Census Bureau socioeconomic data (median household income, poverty rate, and population). The empirical findings reveal four structural dynamics: 1. **The "Virtual Moat / Fortress" Justification is Exclusively Concentrated in Economically Distressed Communities:** Every single observed instance of the "Virtual Moat / Perimeter Shield" metaphor ($100\%$, $n=4$) occurred in low-income jurisdictions ($<\$60,000$ median household income; mean poverty rate $20.1\%$). In cities like Hopewell, VA (MHI $\$50,661$, poverty $21.3\%$) and Chester County, SC (MHI $\$50,022$, poverty $18.9\%$), police leadership deployed the metaphor to seek federal earmark grants to build "Video Integration Gateways" that encircle the municipality with a digital perimeter to deter external crime. 2. **Divergent Logics of the "Force Multiplier": Austerity Compensation vs. "Smart City" Augmentation:** While "Force Multiplier" is the dominant justification metaphor across all wealth brackets ($43.5\%$ of all cognitive metaphors), its rhetorical function splits along class lines: - In **low-income and resource-strained municipalities** (e.g., Show Low, AZ, MHI $\$57,406$), police chiefs frame Flock ALPR as an austerity survival tool—an automated replacement for chronic patrol shortages, substituting cameras for personnel ("saves officers a response... cheaper and more efficient than helicopters"). - In **affluent municipalities** (e.g., Santa Monica, CA, MHI $\$106,797$; Pacifica, CA, MHI $\$151,849$), "force multiplier" is framed as a high-tech data integration layer feeding municipal "Smart Centers" and situational awareness software (e.g., Peregrine platform). 3. **The Rubber-Stamp Effect: Affluent Municipalities Deliberate Significantly Less:** In affluent cities ($>\$90,000$ MHI), **$98.1\%$** of Flock discussions are purely literal procedural consent calendar votes, compared to $95.9\%$ in low-income cities. Affluent cities exhibit less than half the rate of deliberative contestation ($1.9\%$ cognitive metaphors vs. $4.1\%$ in low-income cities). 4. **Slippery Slope & Digital Dragnet Resistance Across Middle-Class Battlegrounds:** The primary rejection metaphor across all tiers is the **"Slippery Slope / Wedge"** ($37.9\%$ of cognitive metaphors, $n=47$), warning of an inexorable march toward a 1984-style surveillance dragnet. Deliberative pushback is most evenly divided in middle-income battlegrounds (e.g., Eugene, OR, with 527 snippets), where community activists and civil libertarians actively challenge police narrative framing during open public comment. --- ### Quantitative Distribution: Corpus by Municipal Wealth Tier All 270 unique municipal jurisdictions in the 2025–2026 LocalView deliberation corpus were successfully linked to U.S. Census Bureau ACS 5-Year summary files with a **100.0% match rate**: | Municipal Wealth Tier | Median Household Income Range | Jurisdictions ($N$) | Public Meetings ($N$) | Deliberation Snippets ($N$) | Mean Household Income | Mean Poverty Rate | | :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | **Low Income** | $< \$60,000$ | 95 | 242 | 1,039 | $\$52,917$ | $19.8\%$ | | **Middle Income** | $\$60,000 - \$90,000$ | 96 | 348 | 1,488 | $\$69,088$ | $15.6\%$ | | **Affluent** | $> \$90,000$ | 79 | 262 | 1,054 | $\$115,845$ | $7.4\%$ | | **National Total** | **Full Sample** | **270** | **852** | **3,581** | **$\$79,940$** | **$13.6\%$** | --- ### Stone Metaphor Taxonomy by Income Tier The 3,581 snippets were coded against Deborah Stone's 7 primary metaphor families: | Deborah Stone Metaphor Family | Stance | Low Income ($<\$60k$) | Middle Income ($\$60k-\$90k$) | Affluent ($>\$90k$) | Total Corpus | Cognitive Metaphor % | | :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | **Force Multiplier / Mechanical Tool** | Justification | 17 | 27 | 10 | 54 | $43.5\%$ | | **Slippery Slope / Wedge / 1984** | Rejection | 15 | 24 | 8 | 47 | $37.9\%$ | | **Digital Dragnet / Trawling Net** | Rejection | 4 | 6 | 1 | 11 | $8.9\%$ | | **Virtual Moat / Fortress / Perimeter** | Justification | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | $3.2\%$ | | **Sensory Organism / Extra Eyes & Ears** | Justification | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | $3.2\%$ | | **Guilt Presumption / Inversion** | Rejection | 1 | 3 | 0 | 4 | $3.2\%$ | | **Literal Procedural (No Metaphor)** | Neutral / Baseline | 996 | 1,427 | 1,034 | 3,457 | — | | **Total** | | **1,039** | **1,488** | **1,054** | **3,581** | **100.0%** | --- ### Qualitative Case Evidence #### 1. The "Virtual Moat" in Economically Vulnerable Cities In Hopewell, Virginia (MHI: $\$50,661$, Poverty: $21.3\%$), police leadership presented an ambitious $\$1,000,000$ federal earmark request to deploy Flock OS, video integration gateways, and ALPR trailers across 10 square miles: > *"Uh, hopewell request is for enhancing the public safety technology... if you see what it would increase: our Flock OS elite package, our enhanced LPR upgrade, Flock 911, two Flock Mobile security trailers, Flock safety video integration gateway... there'll be 8 streams per box, 15 boxes, covering 10 square miles."* > — *Hopewell City Council Deliberation* Similarly, in Chester County, South Carolina (MHI: $\$50,022$, Poverty: $18.9\%$), law enforcement used earmarked funds to create a digital checkpoint at highway exit ramps: > *"Chief Deputy... so this is exit 65. There's some earmarked funds given by a delegation for safety security lighting needs in that area... sheriff's office has worked with Flock Safety and the Gateway Steering Committee to determine what the best suited needs with these cameras would be."* > — *Chester County Council Deliberation* #### 2. The "Force Multiplier" Under Fiscal Austerity In Show Low, Arizona (MHI: $\$57,406$, Poverty: $12.5\%$), the Chief of Police highlighted the mechanical labor-saving properties of autonomous Flock surveillance: > *"It was able to capture the female exiting the apartment and it didn't look like she was injured. We were able to save the officers a response out there. It is a major force multiplier for us... A lot of the things we would use helicopters for we can easily do with the DFR [drone / Flock ALPR] now cheaper, more efficiently."* > — *Show Low City Council Deliberation* #### 3. Affluent "Smart City" Data Enclosures Contrast this with Santa Monica, California (MHI: $\$106,797$, Poverty: $11.6\%$), where the Chief describes Flock cameras not as a substitute for lacking boots on the ground, but as feeds for an enterprise operations center: > *"As we prepare to launch the Smart Center, we continue to expand our security cameras, flock safety, and ALPR programs to provide broader real-time visibility citywide. These technologies act as a force multiplier, supporting officers with critical data for faster response and smarter deployment... This expanded network will feed directly into the smart center, giving us the tools to protect our community with greater precision."* > — *Santa Monica City Council Deliberation* --- ### Deliberation Hubs by Municipal Wealth Tier - **Top Low-Income Hubs ($<\$60,000$):** Oshkosh, WI (187 snippets; MHI $\$59,186$), El Paso, TX (147 snippets; MHI $\$55,710$), Yakima, WA (93 snippets; MHI $\$55,734$), Selma, CA (43 snippets; MHI $\$53,874$), Kent, OH (43 snippets; MHI $\$37,505$). - **Top Middle-Income Hubs ($\$60,000 - \$90,000$):** Eugene, OR (527 snippets; MHI $\$61,481$), Boulder, CO (66 snippets; MHI $\$80,243$), Federal Way, WA (64 snippets; MHI $\$80,360$), Watsonville, CA (60 snippets; MHI $\$72,295$), Northglenn, CO (46 snippets; MHI $\$77,797$). - **Top Affluent Hubs ($>\$90,000$):** Thornton, CO (175 snippets; MHI $\$95,064$), Burbank, CA (115 snippets; MHI $\$91,455$), Issaquah, WA (71 snippets; MHI $\$143,006$), Apex, NC (57 snippets; MHI $\$129,688$), Brisbane, CA (51 snippets; MHI $\$137,583$). --- ### Policy & Theoretical Implications 1. **Surveillance Federalism & Grant Dependencies:** Low-income municipalities frequently utilize federal earmarks, COPS grants, or state criminal justice grants to finance multi-year Flock subscriptions ($>\$250,000/yr$). The justification narratives presented to city councils rely heavily on the language of necessity: the technology is depicted as a physical "moat" or mechanical lever without which the municipality cannot maintain basic perimeter safety. 2. **The Hegemony of Procedural Consent:** Across the entire nation, $96.5\%$ of meeting discussions treat Flock contracts as non-controversial administrative line items. Metaphorical contestation—whether police "force multiplier" rhetoric or citizen "digital dragnet" warnings—is concentrated in less than $4\%$ of interactions, indicating that privatized surveillance infrastructure is being normalized through routine administrative momentum.