Lawmakers should proceed with caution on a camera ban

It now seems a good bet state lawmakers will move to ban the use of automated traffic enforcement cameras in Iowa. The process has already started, with ban legislation sponsored by Sen. Brad Zaun, R-Urbandale, filed and ready for returning lawmakers.

Our hope is lawmakers eager to ban cameras will stop and listen to the concerns of leaders from Cedar Rapids, where cameras have been in place for several years.

We've been both supportive and skeptical of the city's camera program. We generally agree with city officials who contend the cameras, in particular speed cameras on I-380's S-curve, have helped improve traffic safety, both for motorists and police who must otherwise make risky traffic stops on the curve.

Still, when the Iowa Department of Transportation ordered the city to remove a camera and move others to comply with state rules, we saw the DOT's arguments as reasonable. The city, against our urging, went to court to overturn the rules. That made us even more skeptical of the city's insistence that $3.5 million in annual revenue generated by the cameras has no bearing on their decision making.

We're willing to accept the DOT's way on a primary highway, but we've always believed the fundamental decision on how best to patrol the city's roads and highways should be guided by local leaders and law enforcement. And although the cameras have their passionate critics, the local consensus appears to have settled on support or, at least, acceptance.

That should count for something at the Statehouse. But we fear, instead, that lawmakers from elsewhere will once again disregard the merits of local control for a Des Moines-knows-best approach. And it appears they may do so swiftly, without giving Cedar Rapids and other communities ample opportunity to make their case.

Critics of the cameras accuse local governments of caring more about revenue than safety. But now, Cedar Rapids City Manager Jeff Pomeranz has floated the idea of handing local revenue over to the state road fund. It's an idea that deserves serious consideration.

Banning an enforcement tool without a thorough Legislative process exploring its benefits as well as its shortcomings would be a mistake. We urge Zaun and other top lawmakers to not only carefully consider the safety ramifications of such a ban, but to also come up with alternative tools, strategies and resources to help cities deal with traffic enforcement.

' Comments: (319) 398-8469; editorial@thegazette.com