More Editorial

• Commentary: New Mexico Tech's plans have some Socorro residents up in arms
• Trib takes: Feb. 20
• Bouquets & brickbats: Feb. 20

MOST RECENT TRIB STORIES

• ABQTrib.com to remain available
  08:48 a.m., February 25, 2008
• Congressman is indicted
  08:37 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Series of attacks target Green Zone
  08:36 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Iran is defying U.N., agency says
  08:35 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Waterboarding approval probed
  08:34 a.m., February 23, 2008

TRIB IN THE BLOGOSPHERE*

• Ty Murray Invitational thrills fans in Albuquerque
• Is Rome Burning?
• Ominous Skies
• The Road to Invalidation
• Albuquerque company participates in “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition”

*Note: The Tribune does not create and is not responsible for the blogosphere's headlines and stories. These links to blogs talking about ABQTrib.com are automatically generated. Use them at your own risk.

STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• Comments
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly

SHARE THIS STORY [?]

Watch your back. It's open season again in Albuquerque's risky traffic intersections.

The controversial red-light cameras are off. The red-light runners and speeders are less deterred. Albuquerque's law-abiding motorists are at increased risk. And there is plenty of blame to go around.

Not good. Not the way it ought to be. Not in the public's interest.

Understandably upset with the Legislature and Gov. Bill Richardson for horning in on the city's red-light camera revenues, Mayor Martin Chavez on Thursday let their petty intervention get the best of him, by ordering the city's entire red-light camera program suspended.

Chavez acted immediately after the Legislature passed a bill which would siphon up to $1.4 million for state coffers from Albuquerque red-light camera ticket penalties. It's reasonable to ask: What has the state done to earn that revenue?

Richardson said he would sign the bill. He'd be wise to veto it and play peacemaker instead. He should encourage city and state officials to develop a voluntary agreement, in which the state provides some support and independent credibility for the troubled program, in exchange for some of the revenues.

As it stands, the state's action was on the draconian side — muscling its way into the lucrative program simply because it can. Chavez says this makes the program unsustainable.

In any event, it sends a discouraging message to cities and counties that invest and risk their own tax money and develop innovative and successful local programs to combat traffic violations: No good local effort will go unpunished.

With Chavez shuttering the program, the state's greed will backfire. Neither the state nor the city will get the revenues. But far worse, Albuquerque's intersections will be less safe. The public loses in this political confrontation — and loses big. Indeed, lives might well be lost.

Many objective observers might agree that the red-light program was poorly implemented and has had its share of problems, including excessive fines and conflicted primary objectives — public safety versus revenue gold mine. But will adding another big brother — the state — to the mix likely improve or kill the program?

Chavez insists that with the state's fingers in the till, the city will lose money, and city taxpayers will end up subsidizing the expensive equipment and program administration. If so, that would make it a routine candidate for elimination, particularly in tough budget times when mayor and the Albuquerque City Council are looking for easy cuts.

If Richardson insists on signing the bill and playing this game of political chicken, Chavez might have to rise to be the better statesman and do what clearly is best for his city. In that case, he should reinstate the red-light program for the safety of his constituents — the people of Albuquerque. But he also should project the economic and program implications of the new state law.

If the program is truly untenable for the city, he should put the Legislature and governor on notice that either they agree to adjustments in the next legislative session, or the city will terminate the program.

In the showdown between city and state, both need to keep their eyes on the lens and remember that the fundamental purpose of the red-light cameras is not to make money but to deter illegal and unsafe behavior and ultimately to save lives, prevent injuries and help motorists with their insurance premiums.