Iowa House seems likely to follow Senate lead on regulating traffic cameras

DES MOINES - Some opponents of traffic enforcement devices like red-light and speed cameras have taken a 'if you can't ban 'em, regulate ‘em” attitude to a Sente-passed bill now in the House Transportation Committee.

After leading a successful effort four years ago to persuade the House to pass legislation banning the cameras, Rep. Walt Rogers, R-Cedar Falls, now sees regulation as the best option.

'I've come to realize that curtailing them is better if I can't ban them,” he said Monday.

Senate File 220 must win House Transportation Committee approval this week to remain eligible this year.

House Speaker Linda Upmeyer, R-Clear Lake, said the 59-member GOP caucus has not discussed the bill this year.

'The House had discussions over the last many years about this issue,” she said. 'There are many opinions. We haven't caucused so I don't know where - especially our new members - are on that topic.”

Transportation Committee Chairman Gary Carlson, R-Muscatine, and Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-Marion, a member of a subcommittee that will have a hearing on the bill, are among the new members who weren't in the House when it voted to ban the cameras.

Neither of them have counted votes on the committee or in the full House, but think there is support - perhaps grudgingly - for the bill.

'Even if they want to see them go away, I think they want to see them regulated,” Hinson said. 'It's a good step because if we do nothing, it's the status quo.”

Rep. Greg Heartsill, R-Melcher-Dallas, wants to see the devices go away and expects he'll try to amend SF 220 back to the original ban. He had hoped the bill would have been assigned to the Judiciary Committee, as it was in the Senate, and he would be the subcommittee chairman.

'I don't believe the Transportation Committee chairman is receptive to a ban,” Heartsill said.

He isn't sure if a majority of House members support a ban, either. He thinks the House is divided into four factions - those who want a ban; those who oppose a ban; those who want to ban red-light but not speed cameras; and those who want to ban speed but not red-light cameras.

SF 220 would place stricter regulations on the devices to curb concerns associated with the 79 cameras statewide.

The Senate amended a bill that would have banned the cameras with what Sen. Dan Zumbach, R-Ryan, called a 'common-sense, logical” approach. That approach would keep in place systems that promote safety and protect law officers in dangerous enforcement situations.

It would subject fixed and mobile camera deployments to state approval in high-crash, high-risk highway locations and direct profits from tickets they issue to infrastructure improvements and public safety efforts within the jurisdictions. It also would require signage at approved camera locations, justification reports, weekly calibration of the monitoring equipment and police review of citations issued. It also caps civil penalties so they do not exceed the existing fine schedule for speeding violations under state law and would 'grandfather” cameras at locations approved by the state Department of Transportation before Jan. 1 of this year.

Sen. Brad Zaun, R-Urbandale, said the changes would not eliminate abuses by local communities using the cameras to generate revenue or address concerns from citizens about due process. He said cameras operating in Cedar Rapids, Council Bluffs, Davenport, Des Moines, Fort Dodge, Muscatine, Sioux City, Windsor Heights and Polk County generated $13.6 million in revenue last year.

l Comments: (319) 398-8375; james.lynch@thegazette.com