Well, a lot of you called this one; Mayor Mary Verner is suggesting helping to dig ourselves out of the City of Spokane's budget hole in part by diverting money raised by the red light camera fines to the general fund. She's also proposing upping the cost of parking fines. The Spokesman-Review has a preview of Verner's proposed 2012 budget.
The criticism of the red light cameras has always been that they're not really about promoting safety, but are instead intended to bring in revenue. By diverting the money raised from them to neighborhood safety projects, that argument was invalidated. Giving it back to the general fund though could raise some hackles.
So what do you think? In times of extremem financial hardship, such as now, is it okay to divert that money? If not, is it because you're concerned the revenue stream will never be diverted back to neighborhood projects? Just curious what your thoughts are here.
5 comments:
It may be a hard sell with the council also. I would like to see the red light funds continue to go to the neighborhoods. I see she is proposing to not go for a levi lid lift. I know people do not want a property tax hike, but it would solve a lot of money problems the city has and will continue to have for the next few years.
I'm late to the party, but here are my thoughts:
I know it's a bit rude, but I'm going to say it: "I. Told. You. So."
My position stays the same: as long as the cameras are revenue-neutral to the city, I don't have a problem with them. As soon as there is a financial incentive for the city to install them, I have a problem with them.
Based on the Spokesman-Review article, it looks like the cameras generate about $60,000 per year, per camera. That should make it easy to work out how many additional cameras are needed to balance the budget each year.
Don't worry @Steve, I'm a big girl. I can take it :) I've heard a lot of people voice the same sentiment (both 'I told you so' and that they're not okay with the government using the red light cameras as a fund raiser), but on the other hand I've also heard people say that you don't need to worry about it if you don't break the law. I was trying to gauge where the council will fall on this, based on constituent sentiment, but am hearing a pretty even split from the people I talk to. I'll monitor this and we'll see where it goes.
I appreciate you being a big girl. :)
I think there are some serious issues with "don't break the law and you don't have to worry about it."
Making government funding dependent on people breaking the law creates a situation where decisions are based on their financial ramifications. When considering a new law, do we start considering the revenue that will be generated from enforcement of the new law? (Congress already does this.) It creates an opportunity for overcriminalization to become a source of revenue. I personally don't think that is a good place to be.
The red light cameras provide a pretty clean example. Based on the city's statements, each red light camera generates about $60,000 in revenue per year. Suddenly the decision of where to place red light cameras includes consideration of the financial implications of those cameras. Is the budget short $300,000? Where can we put five cameras to make up the budget shortfall?
Does this create the possibility that the traffic department director starts making camera placement decisions based on revenue? People will say no, but I'm too cynical to think that it wouldn't happen. There would be an implied expectation that the traffic department should start generating revenue based on certain projections. At that point, any claim that this is about public safety goes out the window.
On a larger scale, the natural tendency of government is to grow larger and aggregate more power. This natural tendency is in direct opposition to the concept of "consent by the governed."
There is currently a (weak) check on the size of government in the form of taxes. A politician who consistently votes to raise taxes runs the risk of alienating voters and being voted out at the next election (or recalled in a particularly egregious case). It doesn't happen often, but the threat is there. Tim Eyman is probably the biggest force in the state regarding the implied threat of repercussions for higher taxes, although he generally attacks the tax directly. (We don't want to get into a debate here on whether people agree with him.)
Creating a "revenue stream" for the government outside of taxes weakens this already-weak limit on government growth. It's easy to be complacent and just say that it doesn't affect a specific person who chooses not to run red lights. But that decision is effectively a decision to allow additional government growth and to encourage the growth to happen outside the normal process of government.
I read an article the other day that talked about the health care law and the fact that one six-page section of the law resulted in 429 pages of regulations. That's what happens when we don't impose limits on government growth.
Thanks Steve, you've got some valid points. As far as government growing larger though, at just $60,000 per camera, I'm not too worried. Any more, that's a drop in the bucket, which is a whole other issue.
As for promoting safety versus raising revenue, in this case they kind of seem to go hand in hand. Will cameras be placed at the busiest intersections to catch more red light runners? Most likely. But aren't those also the intersections with the biggest problems? Yes, as well. So while they may be used as a revenue generator, local law enforcement and electeds won't be lying when they say they're promoting safety by placing cameras in high traffic intersections.
Post a Comment