×

Pass bill that would offset camera profits

If passed, Ohio House Bill 410 will put a serious crimp in the revenue being enjoyed by Ohio communities using handheld traffic cameras to generate millions of dollars from speeders who often don’t even know they were caught on camera until the ticket shows up in their mail weeks later.

We hope it does because this practice of policing for profit must end.

The legislation recently introduced by Cincinnati Republican Rep. Bill Seitz sets out to neutralize the amount of money generated from fines by reducing the state fund distributions to the communities that use the cameras. With new reporting requirements called for in the bill, communities using the handheld speed cameras would see a decline in state fund allocations equaling the amount of revenue generated in fines from use of the cameras.

For more than a year, we have heard from municipal and township leaders in many local communities using the cameras that police were being equipped with these tools solely for the safety and welfare of the public. They argued it would slow down motorists and make the streets safer and that it was not a money grab. Local communities choosing to use the cameras include Liberty, Girard, Howland, Weathersfield, Hubbard and Youngstown. Now Bazetta is considering the idea.

Suddenly, however, some — including Girard leaders who have generated more than $1 million with the program — are admitting the financial gain. Consider that is more than $1 million that was taken out of the local economy in Girard alone to be divided between local government and the private out-of-state company that operates the cameras for the city.

State Rep. Michael O’Brien, D-Warren, who voted “no” on the bill, told us he also believes the financial gain being enjoyed by the communities operating these cameras should remain.

We disagree and argue, instead, that this method of generating revenue is little more than policing for profit. With it, communities go down a slippery slope of allowing police to increase their focus on revenue generation rather than on other community policing efforts.

The bill also would require that municipal and county courts have exclusive jurisdiction to hear the cases. Under the current setup, cities may hire “hearing officers,” or attorneys to hear motorists’ appeals on the fines, rather than an elected judge.

We wonder how any motorist can feel confident their appeal is being handled fairly when they are ticketed by mail weeks after an infraction is alleged and without any human contact or opportunity to question the officer who supposedly witnessed the traffic infraction — often from the side of the road or an overpass. And if they choose to appeal, they must appear before a hearing officer being paid by the city or township that issued the ticket, rather than by a duly elected officer of the court.

In many cases, motorists who’ve seen their tickets overturned by these hearing officers tell us they still were ordered to pay a more minimal fee, often around $25. In those cases, the community still benefits, despite the hearing officer determining the motorist was correct in his or her argument against the cameras.

“We are using our unquestionable power over the state budget to reallocate money to a state-run fund for road safety that was being extended for the benefit of those jurisdictions that rely on photo-enforcement revenues,” Seitz explained last week.

The argument is absolutely logical.

The bill passed the Ohio House 65-19 on Wednesday and now moves on to the Senate, where we hope it also passes.

editorial@tribtoday.com

NEWSLETTER

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *
     

Starting at $4.85/week.

Subscribe Today