The governor did sign the Red Light Camera bill, which means Garland will share half of the fine money, after expenses, with the state for trauma centers. The bill also provides that standards be observed before installation of cameras, that a traffic study be performed before installation, and that an advisory board of citizens be created. I placed an item to create the board on the Council's agenda and we should begin discussions soon.

None of the state's conditions bother me because the purpose of the cameras was to protect citizens, not generate money. We knew the cameras were working to decrease accidents, as I reported last October. I'm resolved to the fact that we share the money with the state and recognize that anyone involved in an accident may receive benefit from the increased funding to trauma centers.

Now that the state has finally removed any ambiguities around using the cameras, and because the cameras have been doing such a good job protecting drivers, they may have almost worked themselves out of a job. I shared the information about a month ago that fines being collected from red light runners were down significantly: "Currently, fines resulting from offenses captured by the cameras is 62.8% below last year and 79.8% below amounts expected this year."

A recent video story on Channel 4 News examined the dramatic drop in fines. (Click the link to watch the report.)

The realities of the SafeLight Garland program, that it was initiated to protect citizens from red light runners, one of the most dangerous types of accidents a city driver faces, was sometimes lost before the elections one year ago. A majority on that Council regularly contested that a portion of the fines from the cameras would ever be taken by the state and they sought to use the funds as a cash-cow for expensive, ongoing programs. Taxpayers would have been left footing the bills, not red light violators. A solid principle of budgeting is to not fund ongoing expenses with one-time monies. It was done numerous times by the previous Council. One trick was to hire personnel with one-time monies and then leave them on the payroll in future budget cycles. Claims were made that the hiring wouldn't cost the taxpayer because the source of funding wasn't tax monies. It was a true statement for a year.

The cameras have done a demonstrably good job protecting citizens, but they have also demonstrated some sound fiscal realities. I'm optimistic that this Council will continue to avoid red ink as well as city drivers have learned to stop on red.

(Thanks to WA for his post at the Garland Citizens Forum, which is where I learned of the video.)

[Return to Website]

2 comments

Comments:

Comment from: Grant Reid [Visitor]

Mr. Athas-

When I was working on a proposal for the Mass. State Senate this eventuality came to my mind, too. Eventually, if the cameras are truly a deterrent, they will begin to LOSE money. (operating costs > proceeds from fines)

As you noted, that's both a good and a bad thing. However, this entire situation begs the question: when the cameras begin to lose money, will the city continue to fund them with money from elsewhere? If so, where will that money come from?

Personally, I fundamentally disagree with the right of a city, any city, to do allow a camera and associated computers to act as automated law enforcement. In fact, I'd like nothing more than to take a bat to these things. But if the city is serious about reducing expenses to lower the tax rate, or to continue increasing the homestead exemption (as you have noted in your earlier posts) I can probably leave my bat at home--the city may do it for me.

06/28/07 @ 18:12

Comment from: TricIA [Visitor]

Sir, this may not be the right place to post this question. I would like to know if the city council is going to revisit the Helicopter program for the Police Dept.? I have seen a rise in very violent crimes in Garland over the past months. I would love to see the council follow through with the program. I listened to many of you state that it was a vital asset then why not come up with a plan.

07/10/07 @ 16:32

Comments are closed for this post.