The Senate Budget Committee on Wednesday all but killed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s ill-conceived plan to raise $400 million by installing speed cameras at intersections across the state. May it rest forevermore, and not in peace.
California is in difficult straits. It must raise revenue and make cuts that add up to $20 billion, while keeping government operating. But despite support from the normally reasonable Legislative Analyst’s Office, this proposal is wrong, as senators from both parties contended.
Under the governor’s plan, cities could install cameras programmed to nab speeders. Motorists going 15 miles an hour over the speed limit or more would receive tickets in the mail.
The governor claims this would raise up to $400 million yearly to be split among the courts and local government. Courts certainly need to remain open. They may even need a little more money, as we urged earlier this week when we advocated that more be spent on drug courts.
But speed cameras are not the way. Sure, lawmakers are tempted to raise fines when budgets are tight. But that doesn’t make it right. Criminal sanctions should be used to enhance public safety, not impose what would be a back-handed tax hike.
A speeding ticket costs more than $400. That’s real money. Penalties of this magnitude would force many motorists to make tough decisions between paying for essentials and complying with the law.
This budget proposal raises major policy issues. As such, the idea ought to go through the appropriate legislative committees. This concept did surface, briefly. Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, introduced a bill to authorize speed cameras last April 14. She withdrew the legislation without a hearing on April 27. That was wise.
There also is the troubling prospect that one company – Redflex – is behind the push. Redflex supplies cameras to locales around the country. The company had retained the blue-chip lobbying firm Platinum Advisors last year. Although Platinum no longer represents the company, Redflex has continued its marketing effort.
In a recent report to its investors, Redflex offered several reasons why its revenue might fall below expectations. Here is one reason: “the costs of lobbying in various key legislative contexts.”
The Governor’s Office maintains the measure is aimed at public safety. Legislators scoff at that view. Sen. Alan Lowenthal, a Democrat from Long Beach, called the proposal a “cynical attempt to generate revenue.” Citizens would rise up in anger, and they would be right.
Of course, the Legislature either will have to make deeper cuts or find other ways to raise the money. There needs to be a serious discussion about taxes – sooner rather than later. But the use of cameras to raise revenue would be, as one lobbyist said Wednesday, a tax raised by “chickens.”