tranquility said:
That is not a true statement. With little effort, anyone can find that cities are very interested in the amount of revenue they receive from traffic violations.
Of course. They are also concerned with vehicle registration fees, sales tax revenues, sewer rate fees, etc. Being interested in it does NOT make it an effective method of increasing tax revenue.
Red-light cameras, private bill collectors, increasing personnel, shifting the responsibilities to current personnel are some of the things discussed.
Red-light cameras are, as I said, one of the apparent exceptions to the rule. How they get around the cap - IF they get around the cap, I do not know. I have never had to deal with that particular issue.
Private bill collectors are entirely irrelevent to moving citations as the money is distributed to the cities from the state and NOT through independent collections. There is discussion of the pros and cons of private collections for parking citations or for enforcement of ordinance violations, but not for traffic citations since these are not handled locally.
And shifting responsibilities is a nice theoretical exercise that rarely works in the real world. Order officers to write more cites, and you DO find a drop in other areas ... it's a fact of life. There are only so many hours in a day, and traffic enforcement puts a significant dent in them. In busy agencies, there is little discretionary time for writing citations so they have to resort to specialized traffic units. Unfortunately, as calls for service rise and staffing gets low, traffic enforcement units get broken up so that officers can respond to calls for service or handle other higher priority issues.
In a town like mine where there is a good deal of discretionary time, officers spend more of it writing reports. We write a good number of citations, but we COULD do more. We don't, because I'd prefer my officers not write reports on overtime. So, instead of writing tickets and then costing me more in overtime than I could possibly gain in revenue, I would rather they write their reports and complete investigations in a timely manner.
Additionally, if you attend a budget meeting you will hear a LOT of things being "discussed". This does not mean that they are realistic ideas.
While some things are more profitable than others, *all* are profitable in a direct way. That is, the more citations issued, the more revenue. Of course, sometimes the marginal rate isn't that good because of the costs to increase the citations.
Considering I DO law enforcement budegting and have participated in several years of budget hearings (and have formal training and education in this area), I would think that I have a pretty good grasp on this subject.
The bottom line is that it does benefit cities to increase the amount of citations written.
Well ... yeah ... it also benefits them to get a federal grant. But both have associated costs and strings that have to be factored in to the equation. I could discuss the foibles and risks of the federal COPS grants and why some agencies choose not to obtain them, and also why the Clinton era police hiring grants have caused a lot of harm, but this would be venturing far afield.
Looking only at the dollars you receive without considering the associated expenses and liabilities is foolhardy and I would be afraid to work for or live in a city that made choices in this manner. Considering an idea - even a hair-brained or poorly thought out one - is not a bad thing because very often some good thoughts come from the consideration.
Proper budgeting MUST include these considerations. ANY idea that might make money is considered, but many are rejected. Some ideas just are not practical. If you ask law enforcement executives (the ones who must decide where to allocate resources) they will generally NOT be recommending an increase in citations to enhance revenues since they are the ones that have to actually move the beans around and understand the reasons why this might be a bad idea.
Politicians love to spend money. When revenue increases--they have more money to spend. Period.
Unfortunately, politicians tend to get bitten in the ass by half-baked schemes and then they point the finger of blame at the poor administrator who was unable to carry out their unrealistic vision.
You would either laugh or cry at many of the proposed schemes that have been proposed over the years to raise money by police departments.
The bottom line remains that in CA law enforcement executives do not realistically consider increased citations when discussing ways to expand their bottom line.
- Carl