Controversial red-light traffic cameras were the topic of discussion at the Albany Common Council’s Public Safety Committee meeting this week. Legislators considering the proposed ordinance heard comments from Deputy Police Chief Brendan Cox, Assistant Corporation Counsel Bill Kelly and Alec Slatky, a legislative analyst for AAA New York with extensive knowledge on the use of red-light cameras across the state.
Right off the bat, Cox began addressing some of the more pressing public concerns regarding the proposed system for photographing and ticketing vehicles running red lights. He emphasized that the cameras would not comprise the only means to ensure traffic safety, saying that they are only intended to be “part of the toolbox.” He also repeated on several occasions that any contract struck with a private company to provide and run the cameras would not allow access to traffic control systems or include provisions allowing the company to dictate the length of signals—especially of yellow lights, which Cox said the city is actually increasing by one second.
Cox further assured council members that no tickets would be issued without visual confirmation of the video footage by a police officer. “That adds another level of transparency.” he said.
Up next, Kelly stated that there is no “failsafe” to ensure that the videos taken will not ever capture an image of the driver, he said that the possibility would “not nullify [the] program in any shape or form.” The city will do everything “possible and necessary” to limit such occurrences, said Kelly, but “technology only goes so far.” Kelly also testified that the language of the ordinance essentially mirrored that of others from around New York state in New York City, Nassau and Suffolk counties, the cities of Yonkers and Rochester, and that it meets all state requirements.
Slatky—who was invited by councilmember Leah Golby (Ward 10), sponsor of the proposed legislation—spoke last and was armed with an arsenal of information that he said supported the implementation of a red-light camera program in Albany. “They don’t work everywhere,” he said. “But they have the potential to work [here].” Slatky enumerated the successes and failures of programs around the state and said, “Albany has really a tremendous opportunity” to do something that no one else has done: reinvest the money earned from tickets issued back into traffic safety. Acknowledging that its revenue-raising potential has caused legitimate public concern as to the motivations for adopting the camera program, Slatky suggested that reinvestment in public safety as well as transparency could go a long way to alleviating those concerns. “You have to keep them honest,” he said, citing an instance in Nassau County where speed cameras were being used primarily to raise revenue. “The public backlash was immense,” he said.
“There is a significant revenue motive,” Slatky cautioned, explaining why he considers designated reinvestment right now to be of paramount importance to the program. “Once it’s in, it’s not going to change,” he said. “Once you get that revenue stream in your pocket, you won’t be willing to give it up.”
Following their presentations, council members peppered the speakers with questions about specifics such as how they will decide where to place the cameras (the parameters of which are still under review), CDTA operated buses, the use of an RFP process to choose a company to implement the program, and other possible uses for video taken by the cameras (Cox said he didn’t foresee using them for general surveillance, but that they might be used as evidence in major crimes).
Some opposing council members also raised concerns. Judd Krasher asserted that it amounts to a “regressive tax” on those who would not be able to afford an attorney to overturn questionable tickets and called it a scam. Frank Commisso said he is worried that the looming budget implies underlying revenue motives (which an agitated Cox clearly took as a personal insult). Commisso also mentioned that he was contacted by a lobbyist for a red-light camera company prior to any public mention of the proposed legislation, further calling motives into question.
Golby has indicated that she does not know when the legislation will be brought before the council for a vote, but that she anticipates at least one more committee meeting before that will happen.