Martha's Microscope

As we celebrated American independence this weekend, another milestone was passed in Fort Lee. As of July 1, all resident parking sticker expiration dates that were extended from December 2010 were now void, and the new fee passed on December 23, 2010 for the current sticker would now be in full effect.

Why is this significant? There is a new issue on the horizon which brings to mind Winston Churchill’s quote, “The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.” 

This past December 23 at 10 a.m., when most residents were either at work, already in Florida for the Winter, on vacation or running to do last minute shopping before schools let out at midday, the Fort Lee Council had their only meeting to hear public comment and then vote on this new fee that affected every Fort Lee resident that owns or rents a vehicle. Without a sticker, you can’t park on the street for more than two hours during the business day without getting a parking ticket. Requests to change the time and date of the hearing fell on the Mayor and Council’s deaf ears with the reasoning that this had to be done immediately as resident stickers were expiring in December and they needed to distribute the new stickers. They also ignored the audit for 2009 that showed the Parking Authority was  in the black, using the excuse that the sticker program was in deficit so rather than analyzing the program, they decided to charge us. Also falling on deaf ears was the fact that when the controversial sticker program finally passed in the early 199’s, the Parking Authority’s Executive Director said that the program would cost residential taxpayers nothing. 

Now we know that need to rush the passage of a fee wasn’t true. The meeting could have happened at a more convenient time for Fort Lee residents to express their opinions since the expiration date of the current sticker was subsequently extended six months to July 1, 2011. Obviously, the Mayor and Council didn’t want our opinion. They also didn’t want to address why they didn’t solicit public comment in Spring 2010 when the issue was reportedly brought up but tabled until after the Council elections. And this provides the backdrop for the future.

You see, the Council recently had a discussion in Executive Session of the “Red Light Camera Enforcement Program” presented by American Traffic Solutions.   There are many arguments against engaging ATS and their system including living under "Big Brother."  However, let’s look at the two arguments that could support this effort. They are money and safety. For this, the current case in Los Angeles can be instructive as they also use ATS.

In 2009, CBS2/KCAL9 Investigative Reporter David Goldstein reported that not only was there no evidence the cameras reduced accidents, deaths or injuries at the intersections where they were placed, but he found that those numbers actually increased at some intersections. This past September, the LA City Controller Wendy Gruel released an audit of the City’s Photo Red Light Program in which she stated, “The attached audit of the city's Photo Red Light Program found that the program has not been able to document conclusively an increase in public safety due to incomplete data collection." 

And in early June, the Los Angeles Police Commission unanimously voted to kill the red light program due to the fact that there was mixed evidence but no proof that cameras had a significant impact on safety. Among the issues were varied timing of red and yellow lights. Further, the program proved to be a deficit maker for the city but not for American Traffic Solutions, although tickets typically run more than $400, even with a minor infraction. Another issue that screams out from the coverage is how politics has played into the equation and it is something that the audit also refers to. If you want to read more about what is happening in Los Angeles, I would suggest checking out www.saferstreetsla.org.

Search the internet, and you will see that Los Angeles is not the only place that cameras are being rejected. In fact, voters in Houston went all the way to amend the city charter to get the city council to shut off the cameras. According to one report, 15 cities have put cameras to the ballot test and they have failed every time with more municipal ballot votes likely. 

And now we come back to Winston Churchill. We know from the experience with the parking sticker saga that the Mayor and Council don’t want our input. If they did, they would put these type of issues to a public vote or at least have multiple public hearings at different times over a certain time period to ensure complete feedback. Further, as with the promise that there would never be a cost for the residential sticker program, there is no way to enforce anything the Council might promise in order to make the red light program seem acceptable for the moment.  We  know from even cursory research that both the safety and revenue promises are in question and that a camera at a red light can extend to stop signs and can be used for other purposes. We can also assume that this proposal is likely to remain in limbo until after the Mayor and Council elections.

Finally, as with LA, we shouldn’t take politics out of the equation. Who will benefit if ATS succeeds in turning Fort Lee into a place where Big Brother lives? I urge you to think about it and act!