The Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes is helping two Cleveland area groups in petition drives aimed at ridding Cleveland and Garfield Heights of traffic cameras.
It seems that Cleveland Law Director Robert Triozzi is a bit taken aback.
“It’s a sad reflection when liberty is equated with the ability to break the law at will. If motorists slow down, don’t run through red lights, and obey the traffic laws, then the issue of traffic enforcement cameras is moot.”
How conveniently simple.
See, what Mr. Triozzi and other city officials will tell you is, it’s all about the safety. And about the children, too. Perhaps cute puppies.
What they won’t tell you is this they view this as an easily defensible tax on drivers. What kind of malefactor would be against saving lives and punishing those who are wrong?
But is it really about the safety?
I’m not a fan of traffic cameras, but I certainly don’t mind speed traps. What ultimately bothers me is their use as revenue tools, especially considering the conflict of interest.
Imagine this scenario. Let’s make all traffic fines payable to an unrelated state fund. That money can be spent on highways, transportation, widgets or whosiewhats. The point is to eliminate the conflict of interest.
With money going elsewhere, do you think the City of Cleveland’s interest in safety stays the same? Do you think North Olmsted police officers will live in blind spots on I-480?
Until that happens, you’re not a public servant. You’re just a politician.
