Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Ohio city grinds to halt thanks to speed-camera debate
Who says issuing traffic citations is about upholding the law and not revenue generation?
Caught in a real-life “Gift of the Magi” conundrum, behold the tale of Elmwood Place, Ohio, which because of its pursuit of portable-speed-camera revenue can no longer perform the functions of local government. That's because four of the village's six council members resigned over the way these machines are used; without those four members, no quorum can be convened and no business can be conducted.
“The public is bewildered with what is going on,” Village Councilman Jerald Robertson told foxnews.com. “There is a sense that they have no idea what we are doing.” Which apparently is an astute observation.
“I have no idea what is going on with the council,” he added.
The problem is the revenue generated: Nearly $2 million for the city, but in the process the speed cameras have -- like a sheepdog protecting its flock -- deterred visitors from coming to the quaint village. “Businesses have lost customers who now refuse to drive through Elmwood,” Judge Robert P. Ruehlman explained in a March ruling. “Churches have lost members who are frightened to come to Elmwood and individuals who have received notices were harmed because they were unable to defend themselves against the charges brought against them.”
Ruehlman, a Hamilton County Common Pleas Court judge, cited a “total disregard for due process” in the way the village operated its program without offering ticketed motorists a legally fair method of contesting the citation. While the judge had hoped his ruling would have prompted the city to stop its ticketing program, the city refused to do so. The city, which engaged the services of a company called Optotraffic to install the portable speed cameras last September, has enjoyed a great revenue windfall. Optotraffic issued $105 tickets and split revenue 60/40, with the city taking the lion's share. According to the city attorney, the Optotraffic speed cameras have generated almost $325,000 per month.
Read more: http://www.autoweek.com/article/20130607/free/130609844#ixzz2W2D2vvKh