Don't rob red-light revenues

The Gazette Editorial Board

----

We think Gov. Terry Branstad should drop a plan he floated this week for pouring dollars collected by local traffic cameras into the state Road Use Tax Fund.

We understand the motivation behind Branstad's plan. Iowa's road construction needs are growing faster than revenues are flowing into the road use fund. And one big reason is that lawmakers haven't increased fuel taxes in more than 20 years. There's talk once again of raising the tax, but political will, as usual, is lacking.

Also stuck in park is the push to change the formula for spending road dollars to provide additional money for urban areas. The decades-old formula favors rural roads, leaving the state's cities unable to fund needed work.

Without the political will to tackle those big issues, Statehouse leaders are now scrambling for dollars. And, apparently, the governor sees local traffic cameras, such as the ones in place in Cedar Rapids, as a source to tap.

Branstad says he's trying to stop cities from cashing in.

“If they're truly being done for public safety, then why not put all the revenue from it in the road-use tax fund? Then there's no incentive for a community to do it just for the revenue for themselves,” Branstad said. “To me, that's an alternative worth looking at.”

To us, it's yet another example of a state government overreach.

For one thing, there's no evidence that any Iowa city has installed cameras simply to raise revenue. Installing Cedar Rapids' cameras was a local decision that sparked considerable local debate. Police Chief Greg Graham insisted that the cameras would make the city's roadways safer, and the City Council ultimately agreed. In the last city election, the cameras weren't a major issue.

The numbers support Graham's assertions, with decreases in personal injury crashes and accidents attributed to red light runners. Crashes on the once-dangerous S-curve on I-380 downtown also have dropped since cameras were installed.

The dollars that the city collects from its share of camera fines goes into the general fund to pay for municipal needs that would otherwise be funded with property taxes. Graham and city leaders say they hope those revenues to drop as motorists become more accustomed to the cameras and change their driving behaviors.

So Branstad proposes that, after local leaders did the heavy lifting, the state take over Cedar Rapids' camera effort to make sure it's focused on safety gains that are being demonstrated and not on revenues, which local officials expect will decline. It doesn't make much sense.

The state has plenty taxing and spending problems. Branstad and lawmakers should focus on those issues instead of taking yet another shot at cities.

Comments: thegazette.com/category/opinion/editorial or editorial@sourcemedia.net