Tampa’s struggle over red light cameras

 

By all accounts, the look on the police chief’s face was priceless.

There stood Jane Castor in her crisp police uniform and customary poker face at a Tampa City Council meeting. Council members had each just spoken of their support for those traffic cameras that catch red-light-running scofflaws.

And why not? The chief said during the city’s 2-year-old red-light camera program, both crashes and tickets were down at Tampa’s diciest intersections, indicating drivers were mending their pedal-to-the-metal ways. All good.

So, naturally, the City Council then voted 4-3 to kill the same red-light cameras they just said positive things about. Had there been a cartoon bubble over the normally unflappable police chief’s head, it would have said something like:

Wha…?

At the heart of last week’s vote to shutter the city’s successful red-light camera program were politics and a power struggle, a strong mayor versus a council determined to be heard. (And also not appreciative of being called showboats for it.) Which makes for interesting political theater, Tampa style, if not for the actual public safety issue at its core.

It started like this: Back when red-light cameras first won approval, three council members wanted the city’s cut of the $158 ticket — nearly $1.64 million last year — to go specifically for transportation improvements instead of into the general fund.

Seems reasonable. Even if general revenue is already paying for traffic fixes, even if this earmarking would be largely symbolic, it could go a long way toward countering the oft-heard criticism that these cameras are for making money, not for making us safer.

So when red-light cameras came up for approval again last week, those three council members were joined by a fourth in the call to spend at least some of that money specifically on street safety, resulting in a 4-3 No vote.

Probably it did not help that afterward Mayor Bob Buckhorn — while vowing to work with the council to reach an agreement on this â was quoted in a Channel 10 interview implying council members up for election may have been showboating and grandstanding. And, ouch.

This is the brasher version of Buckhorn, who has mostly smoothed out the edges to become his city’s popular mayor.

It was Brash Buckhorn who three years ago said before another controversial butting-heads-with-council-members issue, “I only need four.” Meaning four of seven council votes to go his way.

“I looked at my colleagues and said, ‘I only need three,’ ” says councilwoman Yvonne Yolie Capin, a red-light no-vote.

Councilman Frank Reddick said he was disappointed in the mayor’s comments after the red-light vote. Capin fired back with, “If anyone knows about grandstanding, it’s him with his 6-foot yardstick” — a reference to Buckhorn’s infamous long-ago crusade to keep lap dancers that far from their customers.

So enough theater. This week the mayor said he would find a way to make it work with the City Council — though he was also quick to say the money already pays for traffic improvements.

“I want safe intersections,” he says, sounding mayoral. “However we have to get there, we'll get there.”

And on that, everyone can agree.

Read more From Our Inbox stories from the Miami Herald

  • We stand with the kidnapped girls of Nigeria

    As president and founder of the South Florida Girl Up, a club of teenage activists in Florida for the Girl Up Campaign of the United Nations Foundation, I want to add my voice to that of other activists with whom I’ve collaborated to create and support the first clubs in Mexico, Ecuador, and Colombia.

  • Preventing a massacre in N. Korea’s gulags

    Since the U.N. Commission of Inquiry issued its report on North Korea in February, U.N. bodies, human-rights organizations, governments and think tanks have been working to respond to the crimes against humanity it documented, including the systematic abuse of prisoners and food policies that lead to starvation. But the report’s most chilling section rarely gets discussed: standing orders at North Korea’s political prison camps (the kwanliso) to kill all prisoners in the event of armed conflict or revolution.

  • Why the House should sue Obama

    The Constitution states that it’s Congress’ job to make the laws and the president’s to faithfully execute them. It does not permit a president to suspend a law or grant special dispensations from its requirements. But President Obama has done just these things on numerous occasions, and only the federal courts can preserve the constitutionally mandated separation of powers by definitively rebuffing his illegal actions.

Miami Herald

Join the
Discussion

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category