Proposed traffic cameras cause controversy

<figure id="attachment_7163" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-7163" style="width: 288px" class="wp-caption alignright"><a class="highslide" onclick="return vz.expand(this)" href="http://laprensa-sandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/DSC_0051.jpg"><… loading="lazy" class="size-full wp-image-7163" title="DSC_0051" src="http://laprensa-sandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/DSC_0051.jpg&qu…; alt="" width="288" height="267"></a><figcaption id="caption-attachment-7163" class="wp-caption-text">Community organizer Ernesto Bustillos and Herman Baca. File Photo.</figcaption></figure>
    The proposed traffic cameras for some of the most transited intersections in National City is a slap on the face of the majority population of Mexican origin, since the city is considering contracting with an Arizona-based company for the service, a local activist and long-time resident said.
    Herman Baca, director of the Committee on Chicano Rights, said in a public letter to the city council that while many other cities have condemned SB1070, the Arizona law that goes into effect later this month and that would treat undocumented immigrants as criminals, National City is ignoring the fact that 70 percent of its residents are of Mexican heritage.
    “The CCR along with cities such as San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Jose, Sacramento, numerous organizations, and individuals such as Cardinal Mahoney, etc. have condemned and some have called for an economic boycott of NAZIZONA for the passage of the race baiting, scapegoating, unconstitutional and anti-Mexican law… SB 1070!” writes Baca in his letter, dated June 17, 2010.
    The company, Redflex Traffic System, is based out of Scottsdale, Arizona.
    For Pedro Rios, of the local American Friends Service Committee, an immigrant-rights organization, said that although SB1070 will only apply to Arizona, many Latinos in San Diego are afraid of the law because they say it uses racial profiling to stop people assumed to be undocumented.
    He said that cities across the state, including the cities of San Diego and Chula Vista, have passed, at least, symbolic proclamations stating their opposition to the measure.
    “When elected officials know their communities, they do what their communities want,” Rios said. “It might seem like National City officials don’t know their community, they don’t know the pulse of their community.”
    Rios said that in the last five years, since National City Police Department Chief Adolfo Gonzales assumed that role relations between immigrants and the police have improved. There’s the infamous incident in 2004 when NC police officers called immigration after a family couldn’t produce identification at a JC Penney in Plaza Bonita. Several members of the family ended up deported, in a case that caused a lot of concern.
    “National City already has had a bad precedent, so the city has to be very careful about this. People are afraid,” Rios said.
    The proposed traffic cameras would be placed in the following intersections: Plaza Boulevard and Euclid Avenue; Highland Avenue and 30th Street; Paradise Valley Road and Eighth Street; Highland Avenue and Eighth Street; and Highland Avenue and Plaza Boulevard.
    But Baca said that even if National City contracted with a non-Arizona-based company, the proposed traffic cameras are still “another way to tax the poorest of the poor, in the poorest city in San Diego County.”
    Some cities that have similar programs, such as Escondido, impose an almost $500 fine on traffic violations.
    National City Mayor Ron Morrison said that there’s only one reason why the city is considering putting traffic cameras: Public safety.
    “There are safety issues,” he said. “The majority of the accidents in National City happen because drivers know they won’t be caught, so they run red lights. The cameras are just one more traffic control tool. We can’t have police officers in every corner, so this is a very effective way. The system is extremely fair.”
    Morrison said that the city would not make money off the cameras. Every dollar collected from the fines would go into paying for the service.
    “The money would go back to paying for the cameras and the technology. Most likely the city would make zero out of this,” he said.
    The mayor said that since the city wasn’t able to get 100 percent assurance that it wouldn’t cost anything for the service from the company, the city council sent back the proposal to Redflax for changes. Morrison said there’s no set date for the city council to vote on this matter.
    Regarding doing business with an Arizona-based company, Morrison said that “I’m not going to discriminate people or companies for what their legislature does.”
    He added that Redflex was the company that submitted the best proposal for the job.
    He said that, if the National City City Council wanted to vote on an anti-SB1070 resolution like other cities, he wouldn’t vote “one way or another on it.”
    “I don’t deal with issues that don’t relate to National City. That law is an Arizona law. It doesn’t affect our city,” Morrison said. “Now, if they wanted to bring it to California, I would fight it like crazy. But I’m not going to be dealing with Arizona or Montana stuff.”
    National City Police Chief Adolfo Gonzales agreed with Morrison that the cameras are a safety issue for the city.
    He said that the city has been trying to install them for the past five years in the most dangerous intersections.
    “This would prevent accidents, that’s the bottom line,” he said.
    Regarding the deal with an Arizona-based company, Gonzales only said that “that’s something the city council has to decide. Councilmembers create policies, and the police department follows those directions.”
    Mar Cardenas, a member of the May 1st. Coalition, which urged the Chula Vista City Council to adopt a resolution against the Arizona law, said that the coalition is planning on urging National City to do the same.
    Baca said the city council hasn’t responded to his letter, more than two weeks after he sent it.
    In a second letter, Baca warns Morrison and the city council that “we will await your official responses. You can either state what your public position is now, or wait until NC’s November 2010 general election.”

Proposed traffic cameras cause controversy

Tags