A Dallas-based company next week will begin using cameras to catch motorists speeding and running red lights on Oahu. The more motorists it catches and the more it produces in fines the more profitable it will be for the company -- a system that is as much an incentive as a ticket quota system for police officers, and is similar to an agreement that was ruled to be illegal in San Diego. Traffic camera system
could have been betterThe issue: Motorists who speed
and run red lights will be captured
on camera and ticketed.The decision reflects a bullheadedness in policy-making and a willingness to spend tax dollars to defend against court challenges that are certain to come and could have been avoided.
Hundreds of tickets produced by the same company, Affiliated Computer Services Inc., were thrown out of court by a California judge two months ago because of a similar system. Superior Court Judge Ronald Styn ruled that the city of San Diego had given too much control of the photo-enforcement program to the company.
The judge ruled that the city's transfer of control to the company violated California's vehicle code, which requires cities to exercise more day-to-day control over such operations. In Hawaii, the company will operate and maintain the cameras as well as mail out the citations to vehicle owners identified on camera by license plate numbers. Even if this aspect complies with Hawaii law -- an issue probably headed for court -- the assignment of law-enforcement control to a private company is unsettling.
The system of paying the company a percentage of each fine collected is more disturbing. Citations for running a red light will cost $77, of which the company reportedly will receive $29.75. In San Diego, the company was paid $70 for every $271 citation. Judge Styn concluded that the per-citation fee system amounted to an unauthorized contingency agreement that undermined the company's neutrality.
An Affiliated Computer Services spokesman commented after the San Diego court decision that the company would find a flat fee instead of a percentage of each fine to be acceptable. The Hawaii contract was signed some time later, indicating that Hawaii transportation officials opted for the percentage arrangement.
"The object of this program is not to see how many tickets we can issue," said a state Department of Transportation spokeswoman. "The object is to make our highways safer for everyone."
That does not explain why the department rejected everything that should have been learned from the San Diego experience.
After more than four years of fruitless negotiations, the city can no longer allow one property owner to dictate how or when citizens can gain access to a public beach at Portlock. The city should put the matter to rest once and for all by moving ahead with condemnation of the private lane to the beach, as it had planned to do in 1998. No compromise
on beach accessThe issue: The city fails to resolve
a conflict between a landowner and the
public's right to get to the shoreline.Attempts to compromise have only permitted the land owner, Bert Dohmen-Ramirez, to hold the shoreline hostage through lawsuits and an unreasonable price tag of $800,000 for his third of the 6-foot-wide lane. The city, fearful of the costs of litigation and land acquisition, has tried to appease him, but in doing so has compromised the rights of the public.
Through the years, Dohmen-Ramirez has tried to hold the public at bay, saying that beach-goers throw rowdy parties near his home and threaten the safety of his family. However, police and other residents -- including one man who also holds title to the lane and has no quarrel with the public using it -- say most beach users are courteous and quiet and that no criminal incidents have been reported there.
The city had proposed to placate the owner by locking a gate across the path between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. The ill-conceived plan, however, would set a precedent for future disputes about shoreline access, opening the door for other beachfront property owners to demand similar restrictions. The question of who would be responsible for locking and unlocking the gate also remained unresolved; to pay a city worker to drive to Portlock twice a day would have been fiscally foolish.
Not surprisingly, the proposal was rejected by the public and the Hawaii Kai Neighborhood Board, which correctly termed the plan outrageous.
State law requires that reasonable access be provided to beaches and the issue is a recurring one. Earlier this year, the problem took shape when a developer sought approval for a gated community at Velzyland on the North Shore. It was resolved when the developer promised to put in two beach paths and a road to a public parking area, a solution that met public approval.
Beachfront property owners tend to view the shoreline as extensions of their backyards. They are not. All beaches are public lands, but if citizens can't get to them, they, in essence, become private property. Beach access should not be compromised or denied, not by a property owner, by a gate, by locks, or time restrictions.
Published by Oahu Publications Inc., a subsidiary of Black Press.Don Kendall, Publisher
Frank Bridgewater, managing editor 529-4791; fbridgewater@starbulletin.com
Michael Rovner, assistant managing editor 529-4768; mrovner@starbulletin.com
Lucy Young-Oda, assistant managing editor 529-4762; lyoungoda@starbulletin.comRichard Halloran, editorial page director, 529-4790; rhalloran@starbulletin.com
The Honolulu Star-Bulletin (USPS 249460) is published daily by
John Flanagan, contributing editor 294-3533; jflanagan@starbulletin.com
Oahu Publications at 500 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 7-500, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813.
Periodicals postage paid at Honolulu, Hawaii. Postmaster: Send address changes to
Star-Bulletin, P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, Hawaii 96802.
