RALEIGH – Opponents of the proliferating use of red-light cameras in North Carolina have made some persuasive arguments. They’ve raised questions about the privacy rights of motorists and whether existing contracts with private operators could lead to perverse incentives or corruption.
Unfortunately, they are now touting a recent court decision that appears to cast doubt on the way revenues currently flow in red-light-camera programs. This may not be their strongest argument.
The legal issue involves constitutional language that requires state fines and forfeitures to be directed to public education. Right now, most North Carolina communities that make use of the red-light cameras let private contractors keep a healthy chunk of the resulting fines – in High Point, for example, the city let a Wilmington contractor keep $35 out of each $50 fine to cover operating expenses – and then use the remaining revenue for a variety of local government functions.
Last month, a Guilford Superior Court concluded that High Point was violating the constitution by not routing its red-light-camera proceeds to public schools. Local officials are now trying to estimate how much money will have to be transferred to the schools to remedy the situation, while municipalities elsewhere in the state are wondering how quickly they’ll have to move to avoid having their cameras challenged on similar grounds. These jurisdictions include Charlotte, Hickory, Winston-Salem, Wilmington, and several in the Triangle.
Don’t be hasty, however. The Guilford judge’s order actually stipulates that the “clear proceeds” of any such program involving civil fines must flow to the schools. What that phrase means is subject to some debate. There is a state statute that reportedly defines it as 90 percent of the total collection, which would make programs such as red-light cameras financially unsustainable as currently structured. But there appears to be some confusion as to whether that statute applies here, or if any existing statutes do.
My suspicion is that there are many fines and forfeitures collected by North Carolina governments at a cost that far exceeds 10 percent of the revenue generated. In those cases, the costs aren’t so easily spotted because the enforcement is kept in-house rather than contracted out. If one expected all enforcement regimes to be self-financing, and then rigorously applied the 10 percent standard, that might well block the enforcement of all sorts of laws and regulations (which might well be attractive in general, but costly in the particular). Some critics oppose red-light cameras because they really oppose private contracting in public services, a position that certainly does little to serve the interest of taxpayers. So let’s not get carried away here. Higher courts will likely have to weigh in on the issue.
It does seem to be true that, once true operating costs are excluded, the proceeds of red-light cameras have to go to schools. If that prospect makes cities end the use of the cameras, I probably won’t shed a tear. Presumably, however, officials justify the use of the cameras by claiming that they improve highway safety. As such, the destination of the proceeds shouldn’t deter them from continuing the program.
I guess we’ll soon discover the real motivation behind all the intersection surveillance.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation and publisher of Carolina Journal.