Red Light Camera News Bogus boycotts of Arizona solve nothing
http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/LaurieRoberts/87541
Bogus boycotts of Arizona solve nothing
Earlier this month, the politicians who run Cook County Illinois decided to boycott Arizona and the businesses that make their home here.
“We are making a statement,” Commissioner Earlean Collins said. “Equal justice and equal protection under the law for all human beings.”
One hour later, the politicians who run Cook County approved a contract with Scottsdale-based American Traffic Solutions, bringing red-light cameras to county intersections.
Apparently, making a statement takes a back seat to making a profit.
Across the country, politicians have taken up Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva's suggestion and jumped onto the boycott bandwagon in response to Senate Bill 1070. Beyond the pontificating about our tendencies toward apartheid and the grandstanding about our Hitler-like leaders, however, lies the truth.
Not one of those cities is willing to enact a bona-fide boycott. Instead, their condemnations are laced with weasel words, things like “to the extent practicable” and “in instances where there is no significant additional cost.”
In other words, they'll stand on principle as long as it doesn't cut into their cash flow.
Arizona, you see, is not only ground zero for illegal immigration. It's also ground zero for photo radar. The two leading companies that run photo enforcement programs are headquartered in Arizona. (Redflex is an Austrialian company but its U.S. headquarters is in Phoenix.)
Shoba Vaitheeswaran, a spokeswoman for Redflex Traffic Systems, says it's too soon to assess the long-term impact of the boycotts. “At this point, it hasn't been that relevant,” she said.
Kate Coulson, of American Traffic Solutions, echoes that. “So far,” she said, “the trend seems to be that government agencies are making their decisions in the best interest of public safety.”
Not to mention public solvency. The Seattle City Council was unanimous in its decision to boycott Arizona but only after making sure its denunciation wouldn't extend to ATS and the millions it delivers with its red-light cameras. Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn was asked why the contract, which is up for renewal early next year, wasn't part of the boycott. His answer: “You may have noticed we have a budget deficit here.”
As does the city of Oakland, Calif., which is not doing business with Arizona businesses except that last week it approved a billboard deal with Clear Channel Outdoor, which operates out of Phoenix (never mind that it recently “moved” its corporate headquarters to San Antonio). Oakland's leaders reasoned that it was OK because the company is now in Texas (never mind that it's still on Camelback Road). I'm guessing it didn't hurt that the deal was worth $1 million.
Glenn Hamer, president and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, says it's difficult to measure the effect of the boycotts outside of Arizona's convention industry, which has been hardest hit. Barry Broome, president and CEO of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council says he hasn't encountered a business that won't move here though some local businesses are relocating their headquarters out of Arizona to avoid being targeted.
Both said cities would be better served to target Washington rather than Arizona.
“Its hypocritical, it's grandstanding, it's a cheap shot and it's really pandering to politics,” Broome said. “It's not really solving a problem and when we're done with this, for or against, we'll still have a broken immigration system nationally. That should be important to California, just like to Arizona.”
The problem is, politics is all about pandering, which is why 40 California lawmakers are hopping onto the boycott express this week, introducing a bill that includes a travel advisory about Arizona. One wonders if their call to “cease California investments in Arizona” will extend to the California cities and utilities that own a piece of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.
Or do principles end when the sun goes down and it's time to turn on the lights?
Speaking of principles, the Los Angeles City Council today is expected to extend its contract with ATS. The company operates cameras at 32 intersections though somehow, unlike every other city, LA manages to lose money on the deal. Still, the council's Public Safety Committee says an exception to the boycott is justified “in as much as there is a significant benefit to public safety by allowing this program to continue.”
In addition to deciding whether to extend the contract, the city is scheduled to seek bids on a new contract to operate even more red-light cameras. There are reportedly two front runners:
ATS and Redflex.
So, LA, do you go with a lesser company that'll likely cost you more? Or do you make an exception to your boycott because it's convenient?
I am reminded of the words of LA Councilman Ed Reyes, who just 42 days ago led the drive to shun Arizona. “An immigrant city, an international city, needs to have its voice heard,” he said. “It is crucial this great city take a stand.”
The problem is, a principled stand is the kind that not only inflicts pain but endures it.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Articles Menu
Find Info
Latest Comments
Member Login
