The process was not remotely tidy last evening, but it bore the weighty stamp of absolutely inevitability when the City Council unanimously approved a renewed agreement with a red-light camera vendor that did not appear to be morally undefeated.
Even if its partner in the controversial concept may be sullied, City Hall is not budging.
After three members of the City Council admitted they had been caught in the scarlet camera’s glare, they promptly voted to approve a three-year deal with Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., in spite of at least three scuffmarks on Redflex’s bid:
- Allegations surfaced of corruption by Redflex in other cities.
- The City of Ventura has a similar arrangement with Redflex, using the identical equipment, but pays noticeably less.
- No escape clause exists for City Hall should Redflex falter again.
When Councilman Jeff Cooper questioned why Ventura received a bargain deal and Culver City did not, he was shrugged off with an oh,well. The explanation was that every Redflex contract is different, is individualized – in spite of the parallel samples. The city has partnered with Redflex for the past 12 years.
When Councilman Andy Weissman inquired about a contractural out for the city, he was told none exists, and it may or may not be negotiated.
Community activist Robert Zirgulis’s accusations of Redflex scandals in Chicago and other communities were not denied.
Culver City Is Different?
Mayor Meghan Sahli-Wells, impressively leading her maiden meeting as the city’s top elected official, and police Capt. Allen Azran said such unseemliness “can’t” or “is unlikely” to occur in Culver City – though it was not said why.
Although the subject of red light cameras, with their accompanying $490 fine, ignites a ruckus whenever mentioned in City Hall, it is debatable whether the fury and controversy exist beyond the few ardently committed, such as Mr. Zirgulis and perhaps the most avid historian/researcher in Southern California, Jim Lissner.
Naming Los Angeles County cities that have dropped red light cameras, Mr. Lissner, steeped in dense research, said the fat fine “basically is another tax, and it makes doing business in California expensive.”
Both mounted steadfast arguments against the cameras at the meeting, bolstered by data – but they were lonely.
Although many drivers have been chosen by the dozen and a half Culver City cameras since roughly the turn of the century, few protest publicly.
Critics point out that a scant $155 of the $490 is channeled into City Hall’s coffers.
But Capt. Azran, who delivered an eloquent, fact-based 26-minute defense of red light cameras, and other supporters contended that accidents are reduced and nailed drivers do not tend to be repeat violators.
Capt. Azran devoted a large chunk of his presentation to knocking down myths. He said it was a myth that the cameras “cost the city money,” that the cameras are illegal, that drivers may ignore tickets, that “somebody is getting rich” when the fine amount is established by the state Legislature.
