City's other snow problem: Plunging red-light fines
I was asking city and state officials about budget effects of the snowstorm. Naturally costs are huge and unbudgeted. But there's also a modest hit to tax collections as a result of closed 
stores, employees not working etc.
And here's one you didn't think of: Sparse traffic means fewer fines for traffic violations. In an email, Baltimore budget chief Andrew Kleine says, "Parking is one obvious place where we're losing money, along with transportation-related fines (red lights, speed cameras, etc.)."
Comments
Why does it matter to the city if they aren't collecting fines? Isn't that a GOOD thing if people aren't driving dangerously? (Even if due to lack of traffic.)
This is why many of us that want safer roads are against the idea of red light and speed cameras. We see them for what they are - as profit-makers more-so than an "enforcement" tool.
If, during non-snow events, there were a lack of fines due to people actually driving within the law, then is the city going to smile at the fact that people are obeying the law, or will the city try to devise yet another scheme to drive up their profits??
Posted by: Ron | February 12, 2010 9:32 AM
you mean running red lights is illegal in baltimore?
Posted by: bruce | February 12, 2010 10:47 AM
Last Mayor SRB was in Annapolis and was told that the city had a pot filled with cash that belonged to Transportation and other jurisdictions were looking at the money. She was told that she needed to spend the money or lose it. If the city needs cash then why isn't this transportatiion money being used?
Posted by: Jamie J | February 15, 2010 7:46 PM