March 13--Though I have been caught three times by their merciless, unblinking eyes, I don't hate Chicago's red light cameras.
I know why most people do.
I know the claim is thin that the cameras have made intersections safer, that they have exhibited seemingly arbitrary spikes in enforcement and that the revenue in fines they generate is, in part, attributable to the city's use of the shortest yellow light times as possible.
I know that, despite what the politicians say, the major purpose of the program is to generate money, not to reduce traffic accidents.
And I know that all of us hate getting traffic citations, particularly the ticky-tack ones like the two I got for not coming to a full stop before turning right on red and missing the yellow light by a tenth of a second.
Still, I'm OK with the basic idea -- enter an intersection after the light has turned red and, bam! you get a ticket. It doesn't matter if you or the cop are black, white or brown, male or female, in a good mood or having a bad day. You're busted. And you deserve it.
Running red lights absent a genuine emergency situation is inexcusable as long as the yellow light is long enough to allow drivers traveling at or near the speed limit to come to a smooth stop.
The fact that the program is projected to raise some $70 million a year for the city is a feature, not a bug. Let the reckless scofflaws of the street pay a little more, I say. Put cameras at as many intersections as will generate a profit.
It's not like red light tickets and the related speed camera tickets are the only tax, fee or fine the city charges that are "mostly about making money" as the critics seethe. We should applaud creative, opt-in ways to avoid general tax increases.
Particularly if they're fair. And with a few tweaks -- Mayor Rahm Emanuel's vow to have pedestrian countdown timers that show how many seconds are left before the green light turns to yellow installed at every camera-equipped intersection by June 1, is a good one -- this program can be fair.
Don't want a $100 ticket? Don't drive like an idiot.
So I'm dismayed that mayoral candidate
Jesus "Chuy" Garcia is now pledging to get rid of all the cameras "on day one" should he be elected April 7. He's long had his finger to the wind on this issue and this $70-million-a-year capitulation to public opinion doesn't bode well for his potential stewardship of a city in challenging financial times.
And speaking of fingers to the wind, I'm disappointed to baffled that Emanuel recently announced he was removing the cameras at 25 intersections due to "significant reduction of serious crashes" at those sites, and proposing to allow first-time red light offenders to go to traffic school instead of paying a fine.
First, a "significant reduction of serious crashes" means the cameras are working. Taking them out of those locations makes as little sense as taking extra police officers out of a neighborhood because their introduction caused a significant reduction in serious crime.
Second, red light cameras have been posted in the city since 2003. The grace period expired more than a decade ago.
And finally, where's the Rahm Emanuel who isn't afraid of making tough decisions and telling hard truths? The surprise announcement that he was cutting the reach of the controversial program by some14 percent roughly one month before the runoff election with Garcia looked like a fearful, cynical, poll-driven response, and it undercut his political brand.
Emanuel jumped with both feet over that fine line between listening to constituent concerns -- which he did not do enough of in his first term -- and cravenly surrendering to them.
Make the red light program fair and it will be popular, or at least grudgingly accepted, no matter how expansive it is. Whittle away at it as though it were somehow unseemly, and Chicagoans will continue to hate it.
Aaron Schock, laughingstock
Space doesn't permit me to chronicle the multiple emerging controversies about the way U.S. Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Patagonia (I mean Peoria), spends the public's money as he self-importantly trots around the globe.
But I did want to point out reports in Politico and elsewhere that he has a personal photographer who is paid some $70,000 a year to snap pics of the buff lawmaker.
He's not the first pol to have a photographer on the payroll -- certainly U.S. presidents have them and should -- and robust narcissism is to be expected among the power elite.
But the accumulation of eyebrow-raising jaunts and expenditures has transformed Schock, 33, from a rising star to a punch line. Insiders once considered him a potential future governor or U.S. senator. Now they wonder if he'll survive demands for his resignation and a 2016 primary challenge.
Re: Tweets
Based on responses to online surveys at Change of Subject, the top tweet for the week of March 1 was, "Sorry I commented 'not your best' on the Facebook photos of your second baby" by @thetigersez. And the top tweet last week was "I love when I can still smell your colon on my pillow the next day" under the heading "Why spelling matters" by @AmishPornStar1.
My favorite, and the one that made my wife laugh out loud, was a close second: "I just bought all six seasons of 'Hoarders' on DVD" by @shutupmikeginn.
Read all the finalists and comment on this column at chicagotribune.com/zorn. Write to ericzorn@gmail.com to sign up for the Change of Subject newsletter and receive an alert when new polls are posted.
