Red Light Camera News Traffic cameras won't end budget woes
Traffic cameras won't end budget woes
EDITORIAL
July 10, 2011 12:05 AM Posted in: N-J Editorials Tagged:red-light cameras Not that local officials are thinking of anything other than public safety when they install red-light cameras, but maybe they should entertain the crass thought -- for the first time, no doubt -- that these cameras will not turn out to be the ATMs of law enforcement.
Red-light cameras have been installed in a number of Central Florida cities, including Daytona Beach, Holly Hill and Palm Coast. DeLand, Tampa and St. Petersburg are getting ready to install them. The trend may continue, depending on how court challenges turn out and how much revenue the cameras generate for cities like Daytona Beach and St. Petersburg.
Now, local politicians and law enforcement officials vehemently deny any motive for installing the cameras other than a desire to make intersections safer. But it hasn't escaped our attention that official interest in the red-light cameras soared in Florida after the real estate market crashed and property tax revenues declined.
The money was a lot better in 2008, when Palm Coast began putting up red-light cameras. Back then, the state didn't take a cut of the revenues, which the cities usually divided with private vendors. In 2010, state lawmakers decided to help local governments by passing a law that cleared up a major legal question about the cameras. They also decided to help their own budget by claiming $83 from every $158 fine for a red-light violation.
With the state's grasping hands in the red-light pot -- and with legal challenges persisting and expenses running higher than expected in some cities -- red-light cameras no longer automatically flash green, the color of money.
Fort Lauderdale installed the cameras, projecting they would catch 250 people a day and rake in more than $3 million in ticket revenue. But, according to the Sun-Sentinel of Fort Lauderdale, "courts have repeatedly thrown out cases, and the costs incurred by the police department to prepare tickets have soared."
Fort Lauderdale may not make any money on red-light cameras in 2012. Police Chief Frank Adderley and his colleagues are trying to determine whether it's worth keeping the cameras, the Sun-Sentinel reported.
Lakeland was making more than $1 million from the cameras before the state got in on the action. Now the city is losing $15,000 a year, the Tampa Tribune reported.
What has traffic safety come to if your local government can't make money on it? Not that anyone in a position of authority around this area is thinking such a thing, of course.
They should be thinking about the legal issues that still dog red-light tickets. In May, a Broward County judge ruled that the disparity in fines between tickets issued for red-light violations by patrolling officers and the fines for being caught by the cameras violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
You'll pay $264 if a cop catches you speeding through a red light. But the state takes it easier on you if a camera nailed you, assessing a $158 fine -- with no points on your driving record -- if you pay the ticket within 30 days. Otherwise, you have to pay the $264 fine or take your case to court.
The law provides an incentive for those photographed by red-light cameras to fork over the money and not clog up the courts, which would mean higher costs and a smaller net for the government. But is it fair -- or constitutional -- for the authorities to hammer motorists ticketed the traditional way with a heavier fine? This legal question will require a definitive answer from the courts.
Other constitutional challenges to red-light cameras are pending in the courts. These court battles could go on for years. And ticket revenues are threatened by motorists who contest the violations -- and win in court.
So far, it looks like Daytona Beach is scoring big with red-light cameras, racking up almost 9,000 citations in a few months. But will the costs eventually mount, as they have in other Florida cities, as motorists fight the tickets and judges cast a wary eye on these electronic eyes?
We hate to see citizens begin to equate law enforcement with revenue enhancement. Inevitably, that will undermine public respect for the law and its enforcers. But it's very difficult to believe that officials are influenced more by the debatable public safety benefits -- studies conflict on whether the cameras significantly reduce accidents -- than the obvious revenue incentive.
If the revenue incentive diminishes, which is likely, our local leaders may end up rethinking the safety benefits. Perhaps then we'll get an honest, clear-eyed assessment of the pros and cons of these cameras.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Articles Menu
Find Info
Latest Comments
Member Login
