April 17, 2009…Congratulations to
State Representatives
Cedric Richmond (D-New Orleans) and Jeff Arnold (D-New Orleans) for sponsoring
House Bill 480, which, if enacted, will prevent cities and parishes from using
cameras to issue tickets for red light and speeding violations. Over the last
year, Jefferson Parish has issued 144,000 tickets, while in Orleans Parish,
61,000 tickets have been sent to motorists.
In Jefferson Parish, $11 million
in fines are in escrow awaiting the outcome of a lawsuit on the
constitutionality of the program. In New Orleans, millions have been raised
from the program and the main vendor, American Traffic Solutions, is receiving
up to $29 per ticket. The company’s minority partner is ETI, operated by
convicted felon Randall Moore, who served three years of probation and paid a
fine for his involvement in a scheme to skim more than $1 million from a city
energy contract with Johnson Controls. This fraudulent Morial era contract was
rife with corruption and resulted in several federal convictions. At a minimum,
it is unwise for New Orleans to have any contractual dealings with a firm that
is subcontracting with Mr. Moore and it raises real questions about how the
fines are being allocated and how the program is being administered.
Since the New Orleans City Council, the Jefferson Parish Council
and the courts have not intervened to stop these cameras, it is imperative that
the Louisiana Legislature
take action. Not only does this camera program infringe on our civil liberties, but
it is also expanding without the approval of the citizens of Louisiana.
When given a chance, voters have
eliminated these cameras from their communities. In Sulphur, Louisiana an astounding 85% of the
people voted to remove the red light cameras from their city. In Cincinnati, voters
rejected red light cameras back in November of 2008. Photo radar and speeding
cameras have also been rejected in states such as Mississippi, Alaska, Illinois and Arizona. Referendums
will be on the ballots in several other cites over the next few months.
Unfortunately, in Louisiana too
many politicians want to move in the opposite direction. Instead of allowing
the people to vote on these controversial cameras, more and more of them are
being illegally installed in a blatant bid to bring in revenue for politicians
to spend. For example, State Representative Eddie Lambert (R-Prairieville) is
proposing a bill that will allow local governments throughout Louisiana the right to install
red light cameras. Lambert wants half of the fines collected, which start at
$150.00 for the first violation, dedicated to state government for “highway
safety enhancement projects.” Citizens need to remind Mr. Lambert that our
state government has enough revenue and the people are already fined and taxed
too much. This fine is obnoxious and needs to be vetoed by Governor Jindal if it
is passed.
Across the nation, on Wednesday,
more than 1 million people participated in tea parties and sent a clear message
to politicians at all levels that government is too big and that taxes are too
high. Sadly, Representative Lambert did not get the message, but it seems that
Representatives Richmond and Arnold realize that it is time to stop infringing
on the rights of our people and that it is also time to tell government “No.”
Every Louisiana citizen concerned
about civil liberties and due process should call their legislators and demand
that they support House Bill 480. If passed, Louisiana will join with other
states which have voted to end this obnoxious program. If passed, it will send
a strong signal to the rest of the nation that Louisiana is concerned about
preserving the rights of its citizens, no matter what the cost to government.
These cameras must go!!! It is only the begining, first it was red lights, then it's speeding, next it will monitor your driving and we will be taxed by the amount of driving that we do. I can invision tiny cameras on every stop sign!!!!!!!!
Re:TIME TO PUT A STOP TO RED LIGHT CAMERAS May 18 2009 16:51:50
I agree, these automated traffic violation systems must go.
On the surface, these they seem like a logical way to keep everyone a little bit safer, and suppress dangerous driving behaviors, but when you dig a little bit deeper, you will find that there is no statistical evidence to support this assumption, and in fact, the whole idea is pretty half baked.
Statistics actually prove that they are not a safety mechanism, but rather, are a reliable but crooked income source for local government. In fact, the private company that manufactures, maintains, and receives 50% of the revenue from each ticket produced by these systems, sells them to our elected officials by stating that their studies show that chronic offenders simply do not change their behavior, no matter how many tickets they have to pay, so they can rest assured that the money will keep flowing.
You might say, "So what? They are breaking the law. They should have to pay." Well, the plot thickens. In fact, there is quite a bit of injustice occurring as well. Has anyone ever borrowed your car? If you have let someone borrow your car, like a business associate from out of town, your ex, or teenage children, and they get one of these tickets, YOU are responsible to pay the bill, and the blemish goes on your record, unless you can prove that you were not the driver. Because one can rarely identify the driver of a vehicle from the video or photographs used to initiate the citation, YOU must come up with your own evidence, have forms notarized, and present them to the court within the small window of time allowed to protest, and still, the charges are almost never reversed, and YOU suffer the consequences.
Not to mention the other obvious glitches in dehumanizing any system of justice. For instance, have you ever had a baby, or medical emergency? Sometimes speeding is appropriate. Sometimes a motorcycle will not have enough mass to cause the lights to change. Would you have a person wait at a red light for an hour, until a car arrives to trip the sensor. In many places, for a motorcycle driving after rush hour, especially late night, there is no other way to proceed, than to stop, check, and run the red light.
All of these facts are but a small compilation of what a skilled, even minded journalist could expose to an intelligent, freedom loving community, verifying our intuitive repulsion to automating law enforcement. It's not Robocop, but it's still a dangerous step in the wrong direction.
