How dumb do politicians think we are?

By David Hatfield, Inside Tucson Business
Published on Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Just when I was beginning to feel sorry for politicians and the tasks that await this year’s legislators trying to whack at least $1.2 billion out of the state’s budget, our local Pima County Board of Supervisors goes and approves a plan to use photo enforcement for speeding.

I know, I know. It’s two different groups of politicians. But it got me to thinking.

When three of the five supervisors, the Democrats, voted on Jan. 6 to begin the photo traffic enforcement program, they called it a “public safety” issue. Oh, and, by the way, it will bring in $1.5 million a year in revenue.

ADVERTISEMENT
How stupid do they think we are? Well, they may have us. We did just re-elect them last year. In the spirit of giving credit for honesty where credit is due, it needs to noted Republican Supervisors Ray Carroll and Ann Day argued and voted against the plan largely seeing it as a revenue generator.

Just think what might have happened if voters in District 3 had elected Republican Barney Brenner two months ago instead of Sharon Bronson. Or if either Richard Elías or Ramón Valadez had faced a serious challenger. Just one more vote and the county would not have approved this solution for “public safety.”

Though apparently, it’s a huge issue in Elías’ westside District 5. “Given the way people speed in my district, this is not a revenue generator, it’s a public safety issue,” Elías was quoted as saying in the Green Valley News.

And does that mean Elías is encouraging the Sheriff’s Department to place the photo equipment in his district? Have fun folks on the westside; you voted for him, you got him.

I’m all for the city’s plan to put in photo enforcement for red light runners. I don’t know if there’s any confirmation of this but it seems to me the intersections where they operate are safer and move more efficiently.

But there’s a difference between safety and revenue enhancement for government.

Which brings me back to the state lawmakers who are gathering this week in Phoenix for the 49th Legislature’s session.

The leadership is insisting no other business will be taken up until after the budget issues are resolved. That’s not likely to happen until some time after Thursday (Jan. 15) when the change of executive power in the state takes place with the departure of Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano for Washington, D.C., and she is replaced by Republican Jan Brewer.

This year’s budget shortfalls are big and serious issues for all governments. They will have to be met with a judicious combination of spending cuts and, much as I hate to admit it, revenue increases. I think we all get that. Businesses have had to face their own issues on that score.

But, please politicians, don’t lie to us about what you’re doing. One of these days we might wise up. 

 E-mail comments for publication to editor@azbiz.com. Contact David Hatfield at dhatfield@azbiz.com or (520) 295-4237.
Previous:
I'm not ready for Christmas, or am I?
Next:
AZ makes money from its own mistake on license plate frame law

Comments

Desert Rat wrote on Jan 22, 2009 3:39 PM:

" Lies, damned lies and statistics, Angus. I see your point about increasing rear-end collisons -- and boy, do those brake slammers drive me nuts. But those result in few fatal or serious injuries, whereas running a red light, which often includes speeding, often does.

By the way, the Colorado article says that the city increased the length of the yellow light by 1 second and dramatically reduced accidents. That fact alone undermines your premise as it could have been "Shorter yellows cause more accidents" as much as "Red-light cameras cause accidents."

I see no mention on the rate of fatalities since the cameras was installed. You don't find that odd or suspect? Those are the easiest stats to find -- don't most fatalities make the paper? I must assume it was conveniently left out since it doesn't support the article's conclusion.

I won't even bother with the blog since the sentence available clearly indicates bias.

It's not stupidity, Hatfield, as much as citizens being fed up with the distinction of having some of the most dangerous intersections in the country. "

Angus Scott-Fleming wrote on Jan 13, 2009 9:40 PM:

" If you search for the phrase "red light cameras" and the word "increased" at Google, http://www.google.com/search?q="red+light+camera"+increased , you will see that there are many studies that show that red-light cameras INCREASE the accident rate. This has been shown in multiple cases. Here are the short descriptions of the first few "hits" of the above search:

# Colorado: Red Light Camera Increased Accident Rate 45 Percent
Jul 1, 2007 ... Accidents steadily increase over ten years where a red light camera is used in Fort Collins, Colorado.
www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1835.asp

# Grits for Breakfast: Houston accidents increased after installing ...
Jan 2, 2009 ... Houston accidents increased after installing red light cameras ... of red light cameras ("Was red light camera study flawed?," Jan 1). ...
gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2009/01/houston-accidents-increased-after.html

# Grits for Breakfast: All Virginia red light camera studies show ...
All Virginia red light camera studies show increased injury accidents. More bad news for friends of Big Brother -- their precious red light cameras that ...
gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2005/01/all-virginia-red-light-camera-studies.html

On closer reading of the above stories, most of the increase in accident count comes from rear-end accidents, with a concomitant increase in neck injuries.

It seems to me this is mostly a revenue-enhancing tool. Let's be up front about that part and not claim that it's for "public safety" when most current studies show these montrosities actually hurt the public. "

Barney Brenner wrote on Jan 10, 2009 4:41 PM:

" Don’t feel sorry for the politicians, Mr. Hatfield. It’s we citizens, as usual, who are on the short end.

The pols are half right that traffic cameras are not about ‘revenue enhancement.’ In fact, it’s a financial lose-lose for local residents.

More than half the ticket money goes to state surcharges and ‘clean’ elections. About a third of the remainder goes to the Scottsdale contractor.

So three spendthrifts on the Pima County Board of Supervisors are happy to let more than $3 million per year leave our community as long as they get into our pockets for an additional million and a half.

It’s sad but we get the government we’re willing to tolerate.

Barney Brenner
(the one private citizen mentioned in your story) "

bad hombre wrote on Jan 10, 2009 11:09 AM:

" Wise up? Nah, not in Tucson "

WRITE A COMMENT

Use the form below to post a brief comment to this story, or respond to other readers. Please use the word count tool to assist you in keeping your remarks to 500 words or fewer.

Comments appear immediately on the site. Editors do review comments periodically during the day, and will remove offensive or off-topic content. You may also report inappropriate comments to the editors. Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

(optional)
Current Word Count:
   

Tucson Twitter

Tucson Twitter

What is Twitter?

Online Dining Page

Flickr

Online Dining Page

Click to Flickr

Flickr

View our Flickr page

Fresh Business Tips

Fresh Business Tips

View Video Feed

Classifieds


Find Real Estate

Real Estate

View All Real Estate

Find a Vehicle

Automotive

View All Automotive