Decades of growing financial problems are coming to a head for the City of Chicago. Per the Chicago Tribune:
Mayor Rahm Emanuel must come up with at least $754 million in new revenue and budget cuts to balance the city's books, according to preliminary 2016 budget estimates the administration released Friday.
Almost half of this debt $328 million is owed for pensions.
The inclusion of "at least" with the reference to the dollar amount reflects potentially higher costs that would result if Governor Rauner vetoes SB 777. This legislation would provide some immediate financial relief by tacking on an additional 15 years to the police and firefighter pension amortization schedule. Chicago's obligation to these funds would increase by an estimated $221 without the financial relief from the bill.
The Tribune story also mentions the anticipated budget deficit for the following fiscal year:
The $426 million budget gap projected for next year breaks down into three parts: $233 million for day-to-day city operations, a $93 million increase in payments to all four city pension funds and $100 million to pay down debt instead of push it off into the future at higher cost.
Illinois' political culture has grown accustomed to deferring painful financial reforms and kicking the can down the road. Sometimes a problem can become so large that it becomes impossible to avoid the consequences of difficult solutions. The heat generated from the current budget battle in Springfield are the birth pangs one would expect from a serious attempt to address very serious structural problems.
Laurence Msall of the Civic Federation prescribes a general outline of solutions for Chicago that are also relevant to the State of Illinois:
"What this report is a clear indication of is that the City Council and the administration have to move forward on reduced spending, elimination of unnecessary expenditures, greater efficiencies, but also a reality that they are going to need new tax revenue," he said.
Big financial problems require equally big solutions. Piecemeal reforms are no longer viable options.
I'm going to stake out an unpopular position and profess support for the use of cameras to augment the enforcement of traffic laws.
The Chicago Tribune has published several articles in recent days that raise questions about Chicago's red light traffic camera program. Over a ten-month period, the Tribune found unexplainable spikes in improper ticketing at various intersections throughout the city. City leaders have yet to offer a definitive explanation for this surge in tickets.
Critics of the program suggest that this surge could be caused by a technological flaw, or perhaps a change in the standards for how violations are determined. Human oversight of the program is being questioned. Some even suggest that the cameras are being tinkered with deliberately to generate more tickets and revenue. This particular theory plays into the the "red light cameras as revenue generator" conspiracy meme. People tend to prescribe the worst motives to the use of traffic camera technology, whether it be concerns about "big brother" or revenue-grabbing.
Quite obviously, something has gone awry with the Chicago red light camera program. The problem needs to be addressed. I would, however, caution against any popular movement to throw the baby out with the bathwater by ending the red light camera enforcement program altogether.
Red light camera traffic systems are universally unpopular. They poll badly. The recent problems with Chicago's program only remind people why they don't approve of the cameras. My own personal view is that people don't have issues with the cameras as much as they have issues with being caught for violating traffic laws. The public supports traffic laws in concept, but not always in practice.
When your neighbor is pulled over for a traffic violation its a shame. It's an injustice when it happens to you. It's not that you weren't speeding, but seriously, couldn't the officer have cut you some slack and only issued a warning? Well no I didn't stop while making a right turn on red, but it's a stupid law anyway. A ticket can require the expenditure of time and money. Both are in short supply. The public gets angry and distrustful.
This anger and distrust likely explains the overwhelming popularity of a bill approved last spring by the Illinois General Assembly that would prohibit law enforcement from evaluating police officer performance based upon the number of tickets issued. The bill was quickly signed into law by Governor Quinn during an election year.
The public believes that these evaluation tools incentivize police officers to write more tickets. Do people stop to consider that the tickets are for legitimate infractions of the law? I would suggest that they don't really care. It's possible that the public views traffic infractions as "lesser crimes" and believe that the police should leave them alone and focus on weightier law enforcement issues. Based upon testimony in the House and Senate, this is certainly what police unions believe.
I would submit that red light and speed cameras allow more time for police officers to combat serious crimes by freeing them from having to spend as much time enforcing basic traffic laws. Traffic enforcement cameras also allow cash-strapped cities to cast a wider law enforcement net at less cost because cameras aren't entitled to salaries, health insurance, and pension benefits. This is beneficial to taxpayers.
But if it's true that the public finds the enforcement of certain traffic laws to be a hindrance, shouldn't we be revisiting these laws instead of tamping down on enforcement? This state of affairs reminds me of the tendency on the part of the public to support particular government programs, but not necessarily the funding required for their operation. In this case, the public may like the idea of laws that support traffic safety, except when caught committing an infraction.
We don't yet understand the flaws in Chicago's red light enforcement program. It's interesting, though, that the Tribune series doesn't appear to include examples from other cities throughout the nation to suggest that the very usage of red light cameras is unjust and unworkable. If it's strictly a local problem, then there's a local solution.
It's an election year and the the proverbial pot is being stirred. The issue of traffic enforcement cameras may work its way into the legislative races and gubernatorial campaign. It will certainly be a big issue during the Chicago mayors race. It's a populist issue. Hopefully the emphasis will be on how to improve the traffic camera program and not on its abandonment.
