Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Universities ask for more state funding
Posted in:
* We discussed this yesterday, but let’s take a look at what reporters found when they asked around. First, Marni Pyke at the Daily Herald…
The future of red-light cameras in non-home-rule municipalities is in question after the Illinois House passed legislation partially banning the devices Wednesday. […]
Democratic State Rep. Mark Walker of Arlington Heights voted no, saying the bill does not include Chicago or most of his district, where many suburbs have home-rule authority.
“It doesn’t cover any of the communities where corruption has been uncovered. There are better bills soon to come out of committee — to outlaw red light cameras across all counties and cities,” Walker said.
Democratic State Rep. Diane Pappas of Itasca voted no because the bill “takes away a safety tool and source of revenue from some of the communities that are most constrained in the state. It’s easy to pick on the little guys.”
* Jamie Munks at the Tribune…
The House vote was 84-4 in favor of the legislation, but the measure will likely continue to face pushback in the suburbs and the Illinois Municipal League.
Rep. Diane Pappas, a suburban Democrat, said the measure is less a red-light camera issue and more a “local control issue.”
“What we’re doing by passing this bill is not banning evil red-light cameras, we are depriving non-home rule communities of rights that home rule communities will continue to have,” Pappas said. “People will continue to be ticketed for running red lights in home rule communities but not in non-home rule communities.”
* Neal Earley at the Sun-Times…
Krzysztof Wasowicz, mayor of southwest suburban Justice, called the lawmakers who passed the bill “a bunch of idiots” who are unfairly punishing non-home rule municipalities such as his.
“The program could be administered better, things could be tweaked, things could be worked out differently,” Wasowicz said. “So why do you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater?” […]
“We don’t want to lay off people and cut services because of some rash decision by the House, [North Riverside Village President Hubert Hermanek Jr.] said. […]
“I think anybody who voted for this is more concerned about pandering to voters than the safety of residents,” [Libertyville Mayor Terry Weppler] said.
* Jerry Nowicki at Capitol News Illinois…
Rep. Anthony DeLuca, D-Chicago Heights, suggested that taking away red light ticket revenue might cause affected municipalities to raise property taxes, but McSweeney said those communities should cut costs.
DeLuca said the red light camera program should be reformed rather than partially banned.
“I believe you’re doing this bill to create a headline, you’re not doing this bill to solve corruption,” Rep. Thaddeus Jones, D-Calumet City, said.
Rep. Rita Mayfield, D-Waukegan, however, strongly supported the measure, saying red light cameras “have been a crux in the black and brown communities for years.”
* Dave Dahl…
Sponsoring State Rep. David McSweeney (R-Barrington Hills) is tying this to former State Sen. Martin Sandoval, who pleaded guilty in a scheme to protect red light vendors from a ban on their products.
“This is the bill I passed in 2015,” McSweeney said on the floor, “This is the bill that is so dangerous to the red-light camera companies that they acted to bribe a state senator. They have a roomful of lobbyists. This is a good first step.”
*** UPDATE *** Rep. McSweeney filed a motion to reconsider the vote on his red-light cam bill. I asked him why…
So that Team Durkin couldn’t do it. I’ll release it next week.
…Adding… Yep…
When we tallied up the tickets, the suburban mayors said “it’s about safety, not money.”
Now that their cash cows are threatened, they’re crying, “How will we make up for the money we’ll lose?” https://t.co/ZVZps7GbAk
— Dan Mihalopoulos (@dmihalopoulos) February 27, 2020
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 9:26 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Universities ask for more state funding
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Good riddance to terrible technology. Faceless red light cameras are a burden on taxpayers, and do little to promote public safety. If there is an intersection where traffic safety is an issue, send an auxiliary officer to sit in a squad during rush hour in a conspicuous place. Policing should be about changing behavior, not ringing a cash register.
Comment by High Times Low Standards Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 9:31 am
=Rep. Anthony DeLuca, D-Chicago Heights, suggested that taking away red light ticket revenue might cause affected municipalities to raise property taxes,=
If red-light cameras are actually generating that much revenue, I think we forgot what the whole purpose of red-light cameras are. It’s supposed to be a safety mechanism, not a cash cow.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 9:31 am
==Rep. Anthony DeLuca, D-Chicago Heights, suggested that taking away red light ticket revenue might cause affected municipalities to raise property taxes, but McSweeney said those communities should cut costs.==
Maybe McSweeney should be unlike any other republican lawmaker in the state and suggest some actual cuts at the state level so that they can pass more revenue on to local governments…if he thinks that cost-cutting is the answer.
Comment by Travel Guy Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 9:32 am
I came here to say what Ducky said.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 9:33 am
I thought these cameras were all about safety. They are not there to generate revenue are they Mr. Mayor? So if people would not violate would you ask them to do so to avoid layoffs and service cuts?
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 9:36 am
“a bunch of idiots”
There’s that plain-speakin’, no-nonsense approach that sends voters running for the polls.
I say that kind of stuff, but then again, don’t represent any community.
Comment by efudd Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 9:38 am
Be fair and ban them in home rule cities also. People hate them.
Comment by chichi55 Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 9:41 am
If only there were some other way for municipalities to raise the revenues they need to pay for services.
I wonder how many other mayors have stacks of cash hanging around their houses.
Comment by Candy Dogood Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 9:46 am
Without a doubt the municipalities have become addicted to the revenue. I know of some towns that would be in deep deep trouble without that revenue.
My opinion is that 95% of these cameras need to go. The safety thresholds are simple engineering and should be followed. Anything else is just government literally fleecing its people.
Not to mention all the corruption surrounding this camera programs. They just need to go.
Comment by allknowingmasterofraccoodom Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 9:46 am
Why don’t we trust elected officials in Illinois? The answers from these elected officials are the reason. They can’t get their stories straight, their priority is revenue at any cost, and they pay more attention to the vendors/bribers than the citizens. It’s a good thing that the good people of Illinois never seem to care about this sort of corruption and ineptitude.
Comment by NeverPoliticallyCorrect Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 9:46 am
Krzysztof Wasowicz is struggling with the concept of trust in government. Illinois corruption has real consequences sometimes. The idiot is one who believes otherwise.
Comment by 16th Floor Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 9:47 am
Hey Fox River Grove - I am SO SAD that your cash cow at Rts 12 and 22 just died./s I wonder if anyone in your village is now missing a commission check?
Comment by Unstable Genius Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 9:51 am
===I think we forgot what the whole purpose of red-light cameras are===
Their purpose has always been revenue.
Safety is just how it is sold to the residents.
I can’t believe I’m quoting the mayor of Bolingbrook, but we live in strange times;
“Bolingbrook Mayor Roger Claar said the village got rid of their red-light camera after about six months. He said the majority of the tickets issued from the system were for drivers making rolling right turns, not blowing a red light.
Some mayors are still grasping to the safety claim, of course while providing absolutely no evidence to support the claim.
“I wish we had more. I’m not concerned about the revenue so much as safety for the public,” [plainfield mayor] Collins said.”
https://www.theherald-news.com/2020/02/21/plainfield-mayor-rockdale-police-chief-say-red-light-cameras-reduced-crashes/aj5li9g/
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 9:53 am
Krzysztof Wasowicz, mayor of southwest suburban Justice, called the lawmakers who passed the bill “a bunch of idiots”
swap the red light cameras for more VGT’s.
Justice has 116 Video Gaming Terminals that generated $26,120.21 in VGT tax for the town in January 2020
Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 9:53 am
=== 95% of these cameras need to go.==
Which 5% need to stay? Ugh.
To the Post,
This is a good example to the political science of looking at an issue, lobbying for or against it, weighing merits and pitfalls… but in the end, the pitch, and in this case… one calling legislators idiots, and two making the pitch against the intent while trying to circle back on safety.
It’s not just that the firms with the cameras seemingly have issues, their clients, these mayors and munis undercut the safety argument almost unknowing what they are saying hurts… because they are unwittingly being honest to the end game of these cameras; Revenue.
It would be best if the lobbying by electeds was done privately, not by press questions. The more they yap, the worse light these cameras, that they want saved mind you, look.
The advocates are evolving to their own worst enemies, and I feel some don’t even realize it. That’s a trait of an idiot.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 9:55 am
Of course these towns like the revenue and they especially like the source, as some of it comes from non-residents and unlike property taxes they don’t have to send it in writing to all their voters. They just don’t want to have to justify what they are spending.
As for the good mayor of Justice, look around pal. The mayors around you in most every direction are under the Feds’ heat lamp because of these cameras. Perhaps thou dost protest too much? I do agree that this bill is flawed and they should be banned everywhere.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 10:01 am
Agree majority of tickets and $$$ are for rolling stops for right turns. How about this compromise - keep cameras for running red lights, and place yield signs for all right turns?
Comment by Return Poster Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 10:12 am
Never been more proud to be seated among the idiots.
Comment by A Guy Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 10:13 am
I saw one Mayor I know complain that this is Springfield making decisions for local officials. But… local bodies are creatures of the state… everything they can and cannot do is dictated by the state. And I would support more restrictions on local municipalities by Springfield.
Comment by Just Observing Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 10:16 am
Passing a bill that Pre-empts home-rule requires 71 votes, which this bill has. If there is so much support to ban these devices they should do it for real.
But instead Chicago legislators want to vote to ban these things but don’t want to upset the City. What a cop-out.
Comment by Just Me 2 Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 10:30 am
Thank goodness for red light cameras. It seems to be an issue that has brought us all together on an issue, who woulda thunk?
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 10:30 am
“The advocates are evolving to their own worst enemies.” Reminds me of Animal Farm.
If the statistics do not show an increase in safety–which I doubt they do–the cameras should be banned entirely.
Comment by ajjacksson Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 10:32 am
Which 5% need to stay? Ugh.
No offense but at the top of my head:
Rt. 64 & Bloomingdale
Rt. 64 & President
Rt. 64 & Gary
Rt. 64 & Kuhn.
I never ever just assume that it’s safe to proceed on the green.
Comment by Cable Line Beer Gardener Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 10:51 am
“a bunch of idiots”
Probaly never read the book titled “How to win friends and influence people.”
Comment by Huh? Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 10:54 am
=== but at the top of my head:===
Are those the “5%” of all cameras?
Huh.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 10:55 am
Great way to advance a cause in Springfield. Call legislators a “bunch of idiots.” Yeah that will work.
Comment by anon Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 11:04 am
I got caught at the one at Rt.38 and Winfield Road a few years ago. You know what? I changed my behavior. Yay me.
Now my rant. Rolling through stop signs (going straight and turning right) and red lights (turning right) is dangerous. I walk my neighborhood with my dog every day dodging goofballs not giving a *@!$ about pedestrians. Pedestrian deaths are up 50 percent in the last decade. All you have to do is stop (completely) for a second. It’s not going to make you late for anything.
Now back to bagging on red-light cameras.
Comment by Lefty Lefty Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 11:07 am
@- Cable Line Beer Gardener - Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 10:51 am:
===Which 5% need to stay? Ugh.
No offense but at the top of my head:
Rt. 64 & Bloomingdale
Rt. 64 & President
Rt. 64 & Gary
Rt. 64 & Kuhn.
I never ever just assume that it’s safe to proceed on the green.===
These are the ones that need to go. Carol Stream brags that their red-light camera money pays for 4 extra police officers.
Comment by DuPage Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 11:12 am
IF the red light cameras were used appropriately - to nab those that basically glide through Stop Lights - and corrupt officials DIDN’T use them as a ‘graft bag’, AND they brought in much needed revenue, then great. Yes, a lot of ‘If’s”.
Comment by Sayitaintso Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 11:20 am
I say keep all of the red light cameras in place, just don’t issue tickets. It’s a sunk cost anyway. The signage and presence of cameras should have a positive influence on safety and accident reduction without having to resort to dinging people $100 and worrying about all the associated corruption. Seems like an easy solution to get behind because it is all about safety at the end of the day right?
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 11:23 am
I’d rather see the red light cameras eliminated statewide and replaced with better timed lights. Frustrated drivers take chances. End that frustration and the roads will get safer. In Chicago at times on major roads there are stop signs every few blocks. Time to restudy all that. Some of the stoplights in the city have been around since the 1950’s and it shows. Some suburbs have the same problems.
Comment by Louis G Atsaves Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 11:36 am
=== In Chicago at times on major roads there are stop signs every few blocks. ===
The problem is that the over-proliferation of stop signs causes motorists to not take the signs seriously. But noisy residents DEMAND them on their residential streets regardless if engineers say the sign is needed or not. Removing a stop sign brings out a lot of angry residents.
Comment by Just Observing Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 11:53 am
Ban fines for rolling right turns. Heavy fines for those who go through red lights. Install round-abouts wherever feasible. Round-abouts don’t need lights and cars keep moving albeit at a slower speed. More dollars for mass transit would reduce the number of cars on the road. Lastly, sequence traffic lights so traffic that follows the speed limits can get through arterials with fewer stops. The drawback of real solutions is the lack of grandstanding material for the McSweenys of the world.
Comment by Froganon Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 11:56 am
Being from litigious California, I’m surprised that lawyers aren’t actively seeking clients who have been victimized by this racket. Seems like much money is to be made given the unfavorable news and documentation regarding the cameras, and that the threat of lawsuits alone would shut the program down.
Comment by Maryjane Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 1:15 pm
Democratic State Rep. Diane Pappas of Itasca voted no because the bill “takes away a . . . source of revenue [emphasis added] . . .”
Revenue - that’s all the villages really care about. This state needs to stop using “fines” as “revenue” … that’s not the purpose of a fine.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 1:42 pm
I’m glad somebody called some Legislators idiots; they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and why should home-rule units be exempt? Proper traffic surveys, accident records, and standards can demonstrate the need for automated enforcement. Now if the kickback/bribery crowd would just stop messing up a good thing…
Comment by revvedup Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 1:50 pm
Re-direct all the red-light camera revenue to the state pension funds. See how long these towns want these cameras if they don’t get any money off of them.
Comment by DuPage Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 2:20 pm
Tollway is sitting on the real cash cow, time distance speeding tickets from Ipass data
Comment by Rabid Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 3:15 pm
Someone should amend this in the Senate to add Home rule communities. Red Light Cameras have been a source of corruption for too long and don’t add value to the towns
Comment by Home Rule Driver Thursday, Feb 27, 20 @ 11:03 pm