Town With only 2,100 Residents Racks up $1.5M in Fines in One Month All Because of Two New ‘Scam’ Traffic Cams

Elmwood Place is a village in Ohio with only about 2,100 residents. In September of last year, the town just north of Cincinnati had two traffic cameras installed to nab speeding drivers, mostly as they made their way to I-75 . According to the Associated Press (AP), the cameras issued 6,600 tickets and racked up fines to the tune of $1.5 million in just one month. What’s more, locals said it deterred some from visiting their businesses (or at least angered customers) and even reduced the congregation of a church. “I had two customers say they’ll never come back,” David Downs, who owns the small business St. Bernard Polishing Co. where one speed camera is located, told TheBlaze in a phone interview Friday. “They can go across the river to another small business …in a more friendly town.” Downs went on to explain that his business, which he has owned for 25 years, is located in the zone where the speed limit drops from 35mph to 25mph. The AP reported Rev. Chau Pham, who leads the congregation at Our Lady of Lavang Catholic Community Church, saying about 70 parishioners were ticketed one Sunday in September 2012. He also said that much of the church’s Vietnamese parishioners are from outside the village and a third of them have stopped coming because of the cameras. These men and larger companies like Procter & Gamble Co. and J.M. Smucker Co. with establishments in the area brought on a lawsuit against the cameras, according to AP. Thursday, Hamilton County Judge Robert Ruehlman ruled the camera system in the village violated due process of Ohio’s constitution and were ”a scam.” He called hearings for those fighting the tickets “a sham.” “Remember Optotraffic has a financial stake in this game,” Ruehlman wrote in his ruling of the company running the cameras. “I use the term ‘game’ because Elmwood Place is engaged in nothing more than a high-tech 3 Card Monte. It is a scam the motorists can’t win.” Fox News reported the plaintiff’s attorney Mike Allen saying he thinks this might be the first ruling against speed cameras — red light cameras have seen unfavorable rulings in the past — in the country. “This could be a major turning point for people that are aggrieved by these kind of things,” Allen told Fox News. AP reported that the town, like many small villages around the country, is short on money and might have seen the cameras as a revenue booster. It also noted Police Chief William Peskin saying his staff only consists of auxiliary officers and one full-time officer. In 1998, Peskin said, there used to be nine working full time. “I understand that the village needs money, but do it right,” Downs said. He claimed that the village hadn’t posted a public notice about the cameras among other issues regarding where they were installed and the court process to contest them. Not everyone completely disagrees with the cameras. The AP reported local roofing company owner Dave Siegel saying, although he disagreed with the high cost of the fines, he felt the cameras were effective and were protecting children. “I think people are slowing down, and that’s a good thing. I think it’s here to stay. And others will do it,” Siegel said according to the AP. Going forward, Downs said he expects the judge’s decision will be appealed. But he said their lawyer is ready to take the case all the way to the state level. He also told TheBlaze that although the cameras are off now, they will remain installed until “they completely shot dead.” In the mean time, Downs said he has noticed a physical police presence on the roads today. “The police are out in force running radar today,” Downs said, noting he saw some hiding in between other cars. “And that’s fine.” Downs said he agrees with police officers giving tickets to those breaking the law but the speed cameras, he said, were unfair. “We were getting tickets two weeks after the fact,” Downs told TheBlaze. “How are you supposed to learn? One person got five tickets in one day.” http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/08/town-with-only-2100-residents-racks-up-1-5m-fines-in-one-month-all-because-of-two-new-scam-traffic-cameras/

Traffic camera ban sought by some Ohio lawmakers: Road Rant

Traffic camera.jpg View full size Legislation introduced at the Statehouse could prohibit Cleveland and other Ohio communities from red-light and speed enforcement cameras. Plain Dealer file Some state lawmakers want to ban the controversial red-light and speed cameras that ticket thousands of motorists a month in Cleveland and more than a dozen other towns in Ohio. Legislation introduced last month would prohibit communities, counties and the State Highway Patrol from using photo-monitoring devices to enforce traffic laws. State Rep. Zack Milkovich, a Democrat from Akron, said the cameras siphon money out of people's wallets. Milkovich is a cosponsor of the bill, which has bipartisan support. "They're oppressive to folks just trying to put food on the table," said Milkovich, who added that he regularly hears complaints about the devices. "It's a little bit too much." Cleveland officials believe the proposed legislation is unconstitutional given a city's right to home rule, said Maureen Harper, the communications chief for the mayor's office. The city's photo enforcement program began at the end of 2005. Annual reports and court records show that Cleveland's cameras clicked out more than a half-million tickets during the first six years of the program, through December 2011. Fines and fees collected on those citations amount to more than $47 million. Camera-generated tickets in Cleveland start at $100. Violations qualify as a civil offense and don't go on a driver's license record. More than a dozen other Ohio cities currently aim cameras at traffic, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The list includes East Cleveland, Parma and Parma Heights in Cuyahoga County, as well as Akron in Summit County. Other local communities, including Shaker Heights, are considering programs. red-light-camera-tickets-and-fines-cleveland-ohio.jpg View full size The Plain Dealer Voters in several Ohio communities, including Garfield Heights and South Euclid, have used the ballot box to outlaw photo enforcement on their streets. Ohio law does not address traffic enforcement cameras, so communities operate their programs under local ordinances. The Ohio Supreme Court unanimously ruled in 2008 that cities do not overstep their authority by using the devices as an enforcement tool. On Thursday, however, a common pleas court judge in Hamilton County ordered a Cincinnati suburb to halt its camera program. In his decision, Judge Robert Ruehlman wrote that the village's traffic camera system violated a motorist's constitutional right to due process. He called the setup "a scam that motorists can't win." Nine states have passed laws prohibiting the use of red-light cameras, while 12 outlaw speed cameras, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association. Akron's communications director, Stephanie York, said a "blanket prohibition" on traffic cameras in Ohio would be disappointing. Akron uses speed cameras exclusively in school zones to monitor traffic during student arrival and dismissal. The city began the program in 2005 after a car hit and killed a 10-year-old boy in a crosswalk. York said the city's program is targeted and effective. Akron's cameras caught 11,000 speeders last school year. The tickets generated more than a half-million dollars that went toward child safety programs. "There are ways that cameras can and should be used," York said. "That's where the focus should be." The legislation has been assigned to the House's Transportation, Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee for discussion. http://www.cleveland.com/roadrant/index.ssf/2013/03/traffic_camera_ban_sought.html

Bill would ban traffic cameras statewide in Ohio

Ohio legislators proposed a ban on traffic enforcement cameras to eliminate what they see as violations of drivers’ rights. The recently introduced bill would eliminate the use of photo monitoring devices to detect speed and traffic signal violations. Several Central Ohio municipalities have banned the use of cameras in lieu of traffic enforcement — some after months of disputes. Residents in Chillicothe and Heath overwhelmingly voted to eliminate red-light cameras in November 2009 after concerns that cited drivers could not face their accuser in court. The Mansfield City Council unanimously voted down an ordinance to install red-light cameras in January 2010 after a vigorous letter campaign against the proposal. Red-light cameras have proved to be a hazard to public safety, Rep. Ron Hood, R-Ashville, wrote in a statement. He is co-sponsoring the bill introduced by Rep. Ron Maag, R-Lebanon, and Rep. Dale Mallory, D-Cincinnati. “Several recent studies, including a federal report, have confirmed that traffic photo-monitoring devices increase the number of rear-end collisions at intersections that are monitored by these devices,” Hood wrote. Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Robert Ruehlman ruled Thursday that a village near Cincinnati was violating drivers’ right to due process by issuing $105 fines on speeding violations via cameras that issued thousands of tickets. “Elmwood Place is engaged in nothing more than a high-tech game of 3 CARD MONTY. It is a scam the motorists can’t win,” Ruehlman wrote in his decision. However, Jonathan Adkins, deputy executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association, said traffic enforcement cameras deter unsafe driving. Many people dislike them simply because they like to speed and think it’s their right, Adkins said. “From a highway safety standpoint, it’s critical that states allow communities to use these,” Adkins said. If the ban passed, Ohio would become the 13th state to outlaw cameras that issue speeding violations and the 10th to eliminate red-light cameras. jbalmert@central http://www.newarkadvocate.com/article/20130308/NEWS01/303080033/Bill-would-ban-traffic-cameras-statewide?nclick_check=1 Contact your representative http://www.ohiohouse.gov/members/member-directory