Red-light cameras everywhere

I have an idea. Let’s save some time and money and put red-light cameras at every intersection along Harbor Boulevard, from Newport Boulevard to the San Diego Freeway (405). The city may as well, since the expansion of the red-light camera program includes cameras up and down the street. Either that, or just turn Harbor Boulevard into a freeway.

Red-light cameras are a good thing -- I think. I can only speak from personal experience, but on those rare times when I know there is a camera at the intersection and my foot is moving rapidly between the brake and the gas pedal, the brake wins every time.

Red-light cameras are a good deterrent. Since I was wondering whether adding more of them will reduce manpower costs due to needing less police presence, and since I was also wondering whether there has been an increase in legal and other costs due to the cameras, I called City Manager Allan Roeder to get some answers.

“It is doubtful that the presence of the cameras will result in a reduction of manpower,” Roeder said, “but it may help us move more officers from traffic control to other areas.”

Continuing, Roeder dispelled the notion that the cameras are “huge revenue generators for the city,” as one local attorney has claimed.

“The notion that the cameras are a cash cow is nonsense,” Roeder said. “Our portion [of the revenue] is real small. And part of our expense is having a sworn officer review every citation before a determination is made.”

For the record, the cameras are making a huge difference in the reduction of accidents, but that presents another problem.

“At Harbor Boulevard and Adams Avenue, there has been a 44% reduction in accidents since the cameras were installed,” Roeder said. “And at Bristol and Anton, there has been an 80% reduction.”

So here is the dilemma I posed to Roeder: If the cameras are a really good deterrent, which they seem to be, there will be far fewer people running red lights, which means a further reduction in the city’s take. Soon, this could be a losing proposition.

Roeder agreed and said, “We are working to renegotiate our contract so that under no circumstances would the cameras cost the city money.”

Still, if the effect is to reduce accidents, they’re already a success.

*

If a broken clock is right twice a day, Joe Bell and I are in agreement twice a year. This week was one of those times.

If you read his column Thursday, you’ll know that the “Winter Newsletter” issued by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher had a lot of budget spin.

It was an attempt to put a smiley face on what is quickly becoming a national nightmare. Certain segments of the economy are healthy, very healthy in fact, but the most serious categories of our fiscal picture, including the trade deficit, are in the intensive care unit.

But what Bell and other journalists who enjoy teeing off on their opposition failed to mention was a forthright denunciation of the expansion or continuation of the powers set forth in the Patriot Act.

In a brief promotion on page two titled, “Congressman Rohrabacher Leads Fight Against Permanently Expanded Police Powers in PATRIOT Act,” Rohrabacher starts out by stating that he voted for the original Patriot Act.

Then he makes his case for ending the act’s extension: “This expanded authority was for fighting and winning the war on terror, not routine law enforcement. The standard we set for the war with radical Islam should not be the new standard for America once the war is over.”

And finally, “We must demand, at least, a forced reexamination of these provisions to ensure that winning the war on terror does not result in the permanent alteration of our way of life.”

I like that. And I’d bet that Bell and all of the other local journalists who mostly disagree with Rohrabacher would probably like that too.

But does Rohrabacher get credit for doing something right from these people?

No, because there’s no juice in that. It’s much easier to tee off on the other stuff and support the impression that Rohrabacher is some right wing wacko.

The honest thing to do is to acknowledge his position on this. You can still not like a politician but support a specific position -- it’s OK, really.

In denouncing the extension of the Patriot Act, Rohrabacher did something good and it is hereby recognized.

*

Day worker watch: On Sat., Jan. 7, there were 21 day workers hanging out on the corner of Victoria and Placentia avenues and 24 hanging out near Placentia and 17th Street.

But I’m sure we’ll see the benefit of closing the Job Center any day now.

* STEVE SMITH is a Costa Mesa resident and a freelance writer. Readers may leave a message for him on the Daily Pilot hotline at (714) 966-4664 or send story ideas to dailypilot@latimes.com.

20060114gzisd0ke(LA)