Without cop, no camera

By JEFF ORTEGA
VINDICATOR CORRESPONDENT
COLUMBUS -- Cameras installed at intersections to nab motorists who commit traffic violations would be banned in Ohio unless a law officer is present at the location under a bill moving through the Legislature.
The Ohio House of Representatives voted 73-24 Wednesday to approve the measure and forward it to the Ohio Senate. Girard is the only city in the Mahoning Valley area currently considering using the cameras.
Under the measure, sponsored by state Rep. Jim Raussen, R-Cincinnati, authorities would be prevented from using the cameras to detect traffic violations unless an officer is present at the intersection and can issue a citation at the time and place of the alleged violations.
Supporters said the measure would stop local jurisdictions that hope to cash in on potential traffic fines.
& quot;It is a money grab by the cities," said state Rep. Tom Brinkman, R- Cincinnati. Passage of the measure "is a good thing for all citizens of Ohio." Raussen cited several reasons for pushing the proposal, including concern that companies operating the cameras keep a large percentage of the fines. He also said that the ticket is automatically sent to the registered owner of the vehicle, and that person may not necessarily have been driving when the alleged violation occurred.
"If the wrong person was ticketed, how are we to change behavior?" Raussen said.
Meanwhile, opponents of the measure said use of the cameras has merit.
Amendment tabled
"Red-light cameras do make a difference," said state Rep. Jeanine Perry D-Toledo. "Red-light cameras can protect law-abiding citizens." Perry also said many police departments don't have the staff to man every intersection that has a camera.
"It just isn't going to happen," Perry said.
Other opponents said municipalities with their own charters should be able to decide how to use the red-light cameras.
Lawmakers tabled an amendment offered by state Rep. Peter Ujvagii, D-Toledo, that would have allowed charter municipalities to do just that. The amendment was among about a half-dozen Democrat amendments lawmakers shelved.
Lawmakers also shot down a motion by Democrats to refer the measure back to a House committee for further study.
Unconstitutional?
John Mahoney, deputy director of the Ohio Municipal League, which represents cities and villages throughout the state, said the league believes the measure could be unconstitutional and could violate the home-rule provisions of chartered municipalities.
Mahoney said that few municipalities have red-light cameras in operation right now and that the market for them might be limited to about 75 cities across the state.
According to a legislative analysis of the bill, two cities that have red-light cameras in use now are Dayton and Toledo.
In both cities, a contractor operates the cameras with each city receiving a cut of the revenue generated.
Undecided
In 2004, Toledo collected about $280,000 in fine revenues from the cameras, the analysis said, while Dayton in 2003 collected about $175,000 in fine revenue from the traffic cameras.
The Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio, which represents more than 24,000 police officers around the state, didn't take a position on the measure, saying that its membership is divided on the issue.
Mark Rickel, a spokesman for Gov. Bob Taft, said the governor will review the proposal but has not yet taken a position on it.
The Senate has yet to assign the bill to a standing committee for further review.