Instead of cosplaying that you're involved in any flock legislation to falsely launder your personal opinion on the matter (or prove me wrong and post actual details instead of allusions) perhaps consider the instances where Flock cameras haven't been installed in communities and cities because of the very concern this article is addressing. Less likely to be reported on. I've personally stopped the expansion in my wealthy enclave by bringing up this issue + the police department in my area doesn't want to deal with cleaning after the ones vandalized in our city and reduced their next rollout to 10--evidence that that pressure is having an impact, whether you personally like it or not.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41927777
The search bar will avail for the rest of the story.
The funny part of this is that you didn't even bother to hit the search bar; if you had, your "municipality still uses Flock" thing wouldn't have made any sense.
This is all Internet logic. It's fun to talk about destroying cameras as a vector for public policy, ergo, by the First Law of Message Boards, that must be a viable strategy. Reader, it is not. Nobody's going to blink at these costs, but residents who supported or were on the fence about the cameras are now negatively polarized against doing anything about them.
The cringe-ier thing here is the clear message being sent by many commentators, incl. the author of this post, that nobody's ever thought of breaking surveillance cameras before. Y'all, this is literally a meme.