Advertisement

Commentary: Red light camera ban not a red herring

October 12, 2012|By Keith Curry

One thing I have learned in politics is that you can never predict who will oppose an idea until it's proposed.

Certainly this is the case with the provision in Measure EE that would ban the use of red-light cameras in Newport Beach. The opponents of Measure EE say we should reject this provision because "it may preclude technological advances beneficial to our city."

They are wrong, and here is why.

Because I am active in the League of Cities, I get the opportunity to see how issues are addressed across California and throughout our nation. Today, nearly 700 cities use red-light cameras, more than 100 in California.

Advertisement

What many people do not know is that behind the trend to use this type of automatic ticket trap is a sophisticated and well-healed industry. These vendors approach naïve and unsuspecting council members, many of them searching for ways to plug budget holes, and snare them in the red-light camera trap. Costa Mesa, for example, is one city that went this route. The vendors offer "partnerships," where the private company and the local city split the revenues. With ticket costs often $500 or more, the red-light traps can quickly become like cocaine, an addiction the local government cannot give up.

To help in their efforts, red-light camera vendors employ an army of political consultants, and a bag full of campaign contributions. In Chicago, former Alderman Mark Fary became a consultant to Redflex Traffic Systems, the vendor with an $84-million contract to provide red-light cameras to that city. Fary earned $48,000 for his services to Redflex.

From 2006-11, Redflex employed more than 100 different lobbyists in 18 different states. American Traffic Solutions contributed $140,000 to candidates in Florida when a bill to legalize cameras was up for a vote. From 2003-10, Affiliated Computer Services, another vendor, contributed more than $1 million to political candidates.

But like with cocaine, there are consequences, and quitting is never easy. Many cities reacting to the outrage of their citizens try to end the partnerships, only to find the contract obligates them to punitive cancellation fees. Houston, for example, faced a $25-million withdrawal fee after voters acted to ban the practice. The vendor spent $1.5 million in campaign contributions to oppose the Houston ballot initiative.

Daily Pilot Articles Daily Pilot Articles
|
|
|