John Carona has been a state senator long enough to know how to accomplish something using guile and strategy. His political philosophy -- are there Yellow Dog Republicans? -- no doubt sees red light cameras as an infringement on his constitutional rights. But knowing he probably can't stop them using that tack, he has devised a truly ingenious approach. He wants the state to get fines generated by the red light cameras (for a special emergency medicine fund), thereby undercutting a city's reason for installing them.
I love this quote: "I don't intend to let the cities' greed be the motivation for public policy on this issue."
Because, as I discovered in writing about the cameras in this month's Advocate, safety is not their only reason for being. A lot of it is cash. It's a way to raise a lot of it (Arlington expects its 10 cameras to generate $3.8 million annually; one estimate places Dallas' take at more than $30 million a year) without raising taxes. So Carona figures that if he can take away the money, the cameras will go away.
Or if he takes away the money, it assures that safety is the primary goal of the cameras. What's wrong with that?
It is a violation of our Constitutional due process rights to create and enforce traffic laws for the primary purpose of fundraising.
Fighting crime should not be a moneymaking business. How much money does a city make when arresting and prosecuting a burglar? Why do we assume a city must profit handsomely when enforcing traffic laws? (It's over $20 million annually already--check Dallas's budget!) Can't this just be about the safety?
Posted by: Aren Cambre | Dec 27, 2006 at 10:21 AM