The Orange County, California Superior Court is making it difficult for Santa Ana to turn a profit on its red light camera program. From November 2009 to February 2010, the city lost a total of $145,414 on automated ticketing, meaning the city’s Australian camera operator, Redflex Traffic Systems, is walking away with $400,000 in general taxpayer money every year. The nearby city of Anaheim, which has nearly the same population, made a profit of $41,584 from red light running tickets over the same period. Anaheim not only has no red light cameras, a public referendum has been set to ban them for good in November.
Santa Ana’s monetary loss comes despite charging motorists one of the steepest fines in the country — $450 for every ticket that Redflex issues. The resulting revenue is split between the state, county and municipal governments. According to the city’s contract, Redflex receives $5370 a month for each of the twenty intersection approaches equipped with a camera. In November, for example, Santa Ana collected $83,653.70, according to court records, while paying $104,767.47 for red light camera operations. The net loss of $21,113.77 compares unfavorably to Anaheim, which made $10,249.74 from police officers issuing traditional citations at intersections.
Many cities try to avoid running a money-losing photo enforcement program by adopting so-called “cost neutral” contracts where the private ticketing companies guarantees that a city will only profit, not lose money, from the automated ticketing machines.
That option is not available to Santa Ana. In December 2008, the county’s appellate division court ruled “cost neutral” contracts were illegal (view ruling). Santa Ana also was forced to shut down its program for thirty days to comply with the ruling of Orange County Superior Court Commissioner Kenneth Schwartz who declared the city’s program in violation of a number of provisions of state law (view ruling). Instead of providing notice each time the city added photo ticketing to an intersection, as required by statute, Santa Ana made a single announcement in 2003 with the intention of moving cameras to new intersections within the city limits whenever a particular location failed to generate sufficient revenue.
Santa Ana’s contract with Redflex expires in June.
Your “view ruling” hotlinks aren’t enabled….hmmmm…hot links for lunch…
Fixed… and now I’m hungry.
This for-profit law enforcement business is just immoral. Law enforcement/policing is a public good, which is supposed to be provided for the benefit of the public and be paid by taxpayers’ money. If the tax-paying public finds the cost of provision to be prohibitively high (ie if it exceeds their willingness to pay for the good), it should not be provided. If, on the other hand, the purpose of law enforcement is to make money, it should become private enterprise.
Add two seconds to the Green and one second to the Yellow, a process that takes but a few minutes, and the problem — and the profits — vanish.
The net loss of $21,113.77 compares unfavorably to Anaheim, which made $10,249.74 from police officers issuing traditional citations at intersections.
I don’t like the cameras, but I don’t like the tone in the article that seems to imply that profit is the goal of the department. I don’t want cities to be scoring enormous “profits” from traditional citations, either.
ok, the city loses money every month on this, but i’m sure they’re fine with losing money every month if it makes the city a safer place and thats what this is about, right? making the city safer, so i assume the city will change nothing and put in more money losing red light cameras all to keep making the city safer….right?
if these cameras have nothing to do with money and everything to do with safty then the city should have no problem with this.
There’s some people who are exempt from these tickets…
An article (headline: “Special License Plates Shield Officials from Traffic Tickets”) pointed out that “in California there are nearly one million private vehicles having ‘confidential’ license plate numbers that are protected from easy or efficient look up, thus are effectively invisible to agencies attempting to process parking, toll, and red light camera violations.” (OC Register, California, 4-4-08.) In 2009 the Register revisited the subject and reported that the legislature was extending the “confidential” treatment to even more people! Such “protected plate” lists exist in most states, and many are bloated, like California’s. (In California the list includes politicians – even local ones – judges, bureaucrats, retired cops, and many other govt. employees. And their families! Plus such oddities as veterinarians and museum guards.)
A local reporter should investigate to see how many, and who, are on the list in each state having camera enforcement.