They never are, but that's always how they're sold.
> “the City cannot prove red-light camera locations are based on safety considerations.”
They never are, but that’s always how they’re sold.
I’ve reviewed a few of the contracts. The language clearly indicates its a symbiotic relationship between the municipality and the red light camera installer / program administrator. Basically the municipality isn’t charged for the installation, however they may have to fork over up to 40 % of the fines collected nd if they don’t produce a certain amount of revenue within a given period they have to pay a penalty. They even have PR groups setup BY the company that shoves propaganda and misleading figures down people’s throats in the community to get them to accept that it’s “good” for the public safety. Meanwhile they donate campaign funds via individuals so they don’t have to use PACs that would make it immediately obvious. It doesn’t ost the municipality any front money and they sell the idea of revenue enhancement to the city council scmucks for “free” and tell them they have nothing to lose and everything to gain (oh unless the pople obey the law)...
It’s a wonder people aren’t hurling grenades at them...