City of Lakeland, Fl. Now Losing Money On Red Light Cameras
  13 years
|
This story was published over the weekend here in my newspaper The Ledger. You guys should find this interesting.
I've also forwarded the link to the "Red Light Camera Discussion" forum here to our most progressive and enlightened city commissioner.
I ran into him over the holiday weekend and we were discussing this story and I told him about this forum and the many discussions of red light camera issues in other states and municipalities. I told him there was probably no other better arena on the internet to gauge the public awareness and sensibilities on this issue.
Lakeland's Red Light Cameras' Revenue Drying Up
LAKELAND | Lakeland's red-light cameras have gone from churning a nearly $2.4 million profit to costing the city more than $15,000 in less than a year's time.
And the longer city officials wait to act against the growing deficit, the more it could cost.
City commissioners now want to change the nearly 2-year-old program, although to what extent is a matter of debate.
"It doesn't generate the same amount of dollars as it once did," said City Commissioner Edie Yates. "Some of the cameras, I think, need to be relocated to more cost-effective locations. We want to be safe, but we don't want this to cost us money."
Here's the rest of the story.
http://www.theledger.com/article/20110529/NEWS/110529435?tc=...
Related links
Bad reporting
Again...
The next , obvious question is "why wasn't the contract written in such a way that the city did not lose money, ever?"
Of course, the fact that the city is depending on illegal activities to generate funds, and then to be upset that people following the law? Funny.
Get rich quick schemes never last...
Drivesmart 66, Nuvi 2595LMT (Died), Nuvi 1490T (Died), Nuvi 260 (Died), GPSMAP 195
I guess that tells us what's
I guess that tells us what's important to that jurisdiction!
I guess they'll have to move the cameras to a location where citizens break the law more frequently!@#$
Fred
Most progressive and enlightened city commissioner?
Seems that commissioners prime goal in having Red Light Camera's is to bring in more money to the city coffers. Whereas, I always thought the cameras were primarily a safety issue to reduce red light runners and resulting accidents.
Long Issue In Lakeland
This has been going on for a while here in Lakeland. It's just getting started now after this story has broke.
My commissioner friend was not quoted in that story. If it was all about safety they would leave them where they are and just install more cameras.
If they are losing money, so be it. Wouldn't that be like virtually paying an officer to man the intersection at all times? In theory it would kind of be like paying a robotic officer to monitor and improve safety. We pay officers to patrol our community to keep us safe and enforce our laws. Someone should bring up that discussion at the next meeting where this issue is discussed.
I will forward my above opinion to my city commissioner friend and see if he takes this stance with the rest of the commission. If his past integrity holds true, he will take this approach and make a stand. Of course he only has one vote.
Safety appears to have been a significant reason
If they are losing money, so be it. Wouldn't that be like virtually paying an officer to man the intersection at all times? In theory it would kind of be like paying a robotic officer to monitor and improve safety. We pay officers to patrol our community to keep us safe and enforce our laws. Someone should bring up that discussion at the next meeting where this issue is discussed.
There were a number of quotes in the source that need to be considered.
"Safety is my No. 1 concern," Troller said. "If we're not making as much money, I'd assume they are working."
Selvage said the decrease in violators validates the effectiveness of the program.
"In my view, it looks like they have changed behavior," he said.
...
Yates said she is in favor of moving the cameras to increase safety and to bring in more money and shrink the financial shortfall.
"We want to be safe, but we don't want this to cost us money," she said.
Commissioner Glenn Higgins agreed. "Making money was not part of the deal."
But losing money also was not what he had in mind, either.
"I think we are going to have to look at some of those" intersections where the number of tickets is low, Higgins said.
Mayor Gow Fields said the city wasn't out to make a profit on the cameras and that safety was his main intent.
"We don't make a profit on the police department," he said.
BUT - now the question will be whether the city will continue to support the program if it going to cost money.
Why the change from profit to loss?
It appears that some did not read the source article based on teir comments about the city.
Lakeland's camera use began on June 1, 2009, authorized by a city ordinance.
Under that ordinance, Lakeland charged $125 per ticket dividing the fee with ATS under a formula that resulted in the city getting, on average, $95 per ticket and ATS the remaining $30, according to city records.
That changed last July when the state Legislature passed a law called the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act. Under that law red-light ticket fines became $158 each, with the state getting $83 and Lakeland $75. Lakeland must also pay its costs, including ATS, from its cut.
It appears that, form July 2009 to July 2010, the city made $2.4 million; after the new state law, the city has lost $15,000 (11 months).
It seems another reason for the change in fines is that the city - based on wording in the state law - changed its turn-right-on-red ticketing to not ticket drivers who make a "careful and prudent" right-hand turn at a red light (ie. not coming to a full stop).
I'm Aware of The Change
I'm aware of the change and why the city is not making as much money as they once did.
That being said if the cameras truly were about safety they would leave them in and factor the in the cost much the same as paying for police officers.
Of course some would argue that takes away from actual paid police officer positions, however it has proven to make the intersections safer and in my opinion that should be a factor in considering the budget.