We've had this in the UK for a looooong time now. I simply don't see the issue.
It's public property, what happens on public property is the responsibility of the state, and if the cameras provide a deterrent effect and/or make it easier to identify & aprehend purpetrators then I see nothing wrong (but there was an article that got Dugg last month about some report which said the cameras have a neglibile effect, I never read it, but you know how Digg is the new rallying ground for Ron Paul fanboys).
It's not a popular opinion, apparently, but I agree. The camera's that are over here aren't actively monitored. The only time the images are viewed, is when there has been a case of vandalism, or a robbery or something, to try and identify the perpetrators. Opponents of the surveillance camera's often argue that this does nothing to prevent crime. That's true, but once there has been one, it increases the chance of identifying the perpetrators and finding out exactly what happens. I'm thinking that the alternative is worse.
And besides, even if the camera's are actively monitored, then what? Then some bored surveillance guy will know that I leave for work at 8:30 every morning and get back at 17:00, that I do my groceries on saturday and that I go to the pub on thursday night. If the state wants to keep a record of that, they're more than welcome to, because I don't care if they know these completely useless facts about me.