Posted on 10/26/2004 3:09:37 PM PDT by Momaw Nadon
Ummm... it's not costing the town money - it just means that the projected amount of money coming in will be less. But, the town isn't losing money - they are legally stealing LESS. Big difference.
HA HA HA, the Blue Flu strikes again. It couldn't happen in a better place than Massachusettes.
Who to support? The union cops who are (unintentionally) weaning the local politicos from the legalized extortion known as traffic tickets? Or the politicians who are not bowing down to the union?
Ok, so by not writing tickets, they are causing the towns revenue to be down, the town is attempting to keep the tax rates low but due to decreased revenue they are going to have to raise the taxes, and since these officers are members of the community, will be forking additional monies from their paychecks for taxes. So in escence, they are paying for the tickets themselves.
I love it when articles like these pop out which clearly admit that tickets serve more the purpose of generating revenue than to enforce the law.
This is much like Illinois' Governor Rod Blagojevich signing the "left lane" law which is impossible to abide by given the traffic congestion around the Chicago area. It isn't a law intended to make any improvement in traffic safety... it's a law to generate revenue.
I for one find this comment disgusting. By saying "It has COST the town" Implies that there was some form of pecuniary loss to the town government.
Are they then implying that writing tickets is a form of revenue then? What then can be said about the patrolmen? Are they but income generators?
Town officials claim police union members are handing out warnings rather than tickets in an effort to cost the town money...
Now the truth comes out of it. Seems to me that at one time Police were to ENFORCE the law, and not ENHANCE the coffers. the rest of the article is just a description of two sides posing against one another for barganing position, but those two phrases stuck out in my mind. Results may vary...
Akorahil
I watched a bellevue meter maid write a traffic ticket today to a vehicle whos back bumper stuck out six inches south of a sign that said "no parking south of here." It looked pretty sleazy to me.
"It's a financial situation," Powers said. "But the police are issuing warnings so it doesn't become a public safety issue."
In other words, traffic fines have no safety purpose, and are issued strictly as a means for the municipality (and incidentally, the insurance industry) to make money. Everyone knows this but it is rare to hear an official admit it.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Good thing to see that you and I see the same thing on this. Freepers never fail to amaze me at how canny we can be. Nor do Freepers fail me at how common we all think.
Akorahil
Yup. That's pretty sleazy, alright... But, if it generates revenue, then the government is happy...
Trivial ticket writers, be they cop or meter maid, are lower than whale shit at the bottom of the Marianas Trench.
That is lame. I beat a parking ticket for precisely the same thing.
More proof that the most cops are really sent out to fleece the public rather than serve.
A Sterling Heights, Michigan cop wrote a bunch of tickets for people not having their parking brakes set in their driveway. The public was powerless to rid them selves of this character.
Once these cops in Danvers get a bigger cut of the loot, they will be back to their regular ways.
To bad real cops are mixed in with the "revenue agents" parading around as cops.
Then traffic tickets aren't "fines", really. They're more like selective taxes that can raise your auto-insurance.
Think about that. A municipality issues a ticket to collect revenue, which then gives your auto insurance company reason to charge you more for insurance. This amounts to a kickback of sorts.
All of this falls in line with "ticket quotas" that are rarely ever admitted to, although some officers have... especially in towns in the Chicago burbs like (this one's for the search engines) Westchester, Hillside, Berkeley, STONE PARK, STONE PARK, STONE PARK (not a town, really, but a speedtrap to itself), LaGrange, Bensenville, Oakbrook Terrace.... and a few others.
(I reserve the right to my opinion and if STONE PARK doesn't like it, tough.)
173K in parking revenue for a town the size of Danvers seems like a lot of $$$ to me.
The average ticket is probably $30.00 I assume. That would be over 5000 tickets.
Danvers is a town located in Essex County, Massachusetts. As of the 2000 census, the town had a total population of 25,212. The town was formerly named Salem Village. Most of the early victims and accusers of the 1692 Salem witch trials lived here. While early depositions and interviews took place in Salem Village starting in February, the actual trials and a majority of depositions and interviews were moved to Salem in May.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Danvers,-Massachusetts
I suspect the average ticket is more like $70. But the real cost is the insurance surcharge. I have never had one but I suspect it will cost more than $500.00.
How can they regulate driving behavior on private property? You don't even need to have your car registered if you don't drive it on "public" roadways. What's next, speeding tickets for Nascar drivers?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.