Allowing different treatment of individuals for any reason beyond actual reasonable doubt is a dangerously slippery slope. Simply putting law enforcement in an area that has higher crime statistics in an effort to prevent crime is a good idea. Allowing those same officers to harass people in the area that haven't committed a crime is unacceptable.
My only concern is this: if the long term effects of this project will indeed reduce crime, do we have a society that's evolved to be less criminal or so we simply lack the data (because we've actively changed it) to continue to be effective at preventing crime?
You're probably right about the slippery slope argument. There is a risk. Still, NYC (and maybe soon SF) has implemented stop and frisk, without a slippery slope, (afaik) and data seem to point to a reduction in crime.
Some people have found stop-and-frisk unacceptable, yet others find it acceptable.
I don't think measuring decrease in crime is that difficult. One can find out statistically or by way of anthropological study at the other end of the spectrum. One of the easiest ways is probably to ask the residents. do they feel that crime has risen or fallen? Ask Real Estate agents --they have a good pulse on a neighborhood.
Now, something unrelated and this is just a hunch, but I guess that neighborhoods with high home ownership would have better reception for this than neighborhoods with low ownership --not because the population prefer crime, but because a reduction in crime would have the side effect of having a positive (higher) impact on rents and that's a negative for most renters.
My only concern is this: if the long term effects of this project will indeed reduce crime, do we have a society that's evolved to be less criminal or so we simply lack the data (because we've actively changed it) to continue to be effective at preventing crime?