Supervisors considering increasing photo speed camera fees today


The County Supervisors are considering increasing photo speed camera revenues. This is a mistake, considering Napolitano has already placed more speed cameras around the state than any other state in the country, turning us into a big brother state with these cameras that are nothing more than hidden taxes, yet Arizona has the second worst budget crisis in the country after California. Speed cameras do not work as revenue generators, because the private companies take too much of the profit. 40% of speed camera tickets are appealed, which puts a huge financial and resource strain on our justice courts, since many of them end up being thrown out. Considering the Supervisors’ poor record of overspending on items like the $340 million court tower Taj Mahal, they should not be voting to increase the fines on speed camera tickets by another $20. It is not surprising that instead of cutting taxes and spending, the Supervisors are about to increase another hidden tax that does not work.

From Supervisors agenda for today -

ESTABLISH A PHOTO ENFORCEMENT FEE
Pursuant to A.R.S. §11-251.08, convene the scheduled public hearing, to solicit comments and consider the adoption of Photo Enforcement Fee of $20.00 per defendant to begin December 1, 2009. The proposed photo enforcement fee will be assessed against each individual charged


Comments

  1. Conservative one says:

    The agenda says that the money will go to the justice courts, but if you’ve worked in government for very long, you know that the Supervisors have a bad tendency of raiding other government agencies funding. Remember they forced all other county agencies including law enforcement to cut their budgets recently by 15%. I wouldn’t trust them on this one. I suspect that a significant amount of that money will find its way to the Supervisors coffers.

  2. Barry Young listener says:

    Barry Young was talking about this on his show today, how the county supervisors didn’t post a public notice of this vote until yesterday, 1 day before the vote, the minimum length of notice required by law. They did that on purpose so people would be less likely to find out about it and show up to express public opposition to the vote. More shady politics by the county supervisors. It’s like trying to hide a tax increase from the voters. This current crop of supervisors is always pulling political ploys like that in order to hide their big spending and tax increases.

  3. alicia gegner says:

    $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ makes the Supervisors wheels go ’round. If you want to know what goes on in someone’s mind, listen to what they talk about, and watch what they do. With our illustrious BoS, it is ALL about the $ $, and making it flow their way.

    Heard anything lately about budget cuts for tight times? Heard anything about compassion for overburdened taspayers? Nope! With these folks, it is all about themselves, and the $ $ $ , of course.

  4. BOS has to pay for the their big mansion they are building.

  5. So is this generalissimo Smith’s idea or more bad legal advise from Tom Irvine? Or could it be direction from the “Don” trying to get more money for bail? Either way, sounds like they will be in court again. Someone please send them a copy of the Constitution!

    Check out “Lucifer’s home movies” by Montini http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/EJMontini/66723

    He got this one right!

  6. I have a better idea. Just eliminate photo radar. No more strain on the courts due to appeals. Problem solved.

  7. every citizen that spoke was opposed to the increase.

    The BOS voted against the will of the people.

  8. Has anyone noticed that the radar sites on soutbound 51 are at the bottom of hills just before Bethany Home and McDowell Rds!

    And this is for safety purposes???!!!

Trackbacks

  1. [...] 4) (and here’s the real headscratcher, if the previous ones weren’t) retroactively indemnifies County Boards of Supervisors from previous illegal (undercurrent state law) actions they have taken such as passing increases on court service costs. [...]

Speak Your Mind

*