Traffic Cameras: East Liverpool, Ohio Votes Them Out

In a bid to end the use of traffic cameras by the city police department, the citizens of East Liverpool, Ohio, voted against the implementation of traffic enforcement cameras. The vote, which took place in November 2019, saw a rejection of the cameras by a significant margin, with 1,560 votes against and only 604 in favor. This decision came after a two-year legal battle between the city and the citizens' group East Liverpool Citizens Against Traffic Cams, led by Donald Bean. The group argued that the use of traffic cameras amounted to taxation without representation, and that the police department's role was to protect and serve rather than raise revenue for the community. The city, on the other hand, defended the use of cameras, citing increased safety and additional revenue, which was used to hire more police officers and purchase new equipment. Despite the police chief's encouragement to appeal the decision, the city council ultimately voted against it, respecting the will of the people of East Liverpool.

The East Liverpool traffic camera ballot

In 2019, the city council of East Liverpool, Ohio, voted against appealing a decision made by voters to end the use of traffic enforcement cameras. This decision came after a two-year legal battle between the city and members of the citizens' group, East Liverpool Citizens Against Traffic Cams, led by Donald Bean. The group urged the council to respect the will of the people, who had voted overwhelmingly against the use of traffic cameras, with 72% of the vote.

The use of traffic cameras in East Liverpool had been a controversial issue for years, with citizens debating the merits of allowing the police to use them to catch speeding drivers. Many citizens felt that receiving a ticket in the mail from a traffic camera was a form of "taxation without representation". They believed that the police department's role was to protect and serve, rather than raise money through fines. This sentiment was shared by other communities in Ohio, such as Steubenville, where voters approved a ballot measure invalidating the use of traffic cameras after a judge declared them illegal.

The East Liverpool police department and some council members defended the use of traffic cameras, arguing that they increased safety and generated significant revenue for the city. The police chief, John Lane, highlighted the decrease in crashes along State Route 11 and the additional funding for the police department, which was used to hire more officers, purchase new vehicles, and upgrade equipment. He also argued that the cameras slowed down traffic, making the city's roads safer.

However, Mark Hanni, an attorney for Citizens Against Traffic Cameras, countered that the city could still enforce speed limits through traditional means, such as having police officers armed with radar guns. He and other opponents of the cameras believed that the use of automated ticketing machines was an overreach of the government's power and a violation of citizens' rights.

The battle over traffic cameras in East Liverpool and other Northeast Ohio communities even reached the state's Supreme Court, which heard arguments about the legality of withholding state funding from cities that used traffic cams. The court's decision was highly anticipated, as it would impact how municipalities could run their traffic camera programs and affect the finances of both the cities and the state.

In the end, the voters of East Liverpool made their voices heard through the ballot, and the city council ultimately respected their decision, bringing an end to the use of traffic enforcement cameras in the city.

The legal battle between citizens and the city

In March 2022, a legal battle between citizens and the city of East Liverpool, Ohio, played out in the state's Supreme Court. The case pertained to the use of community traffic cameras, with citizens arguing against the city's partnership with Blue Line Solutions—a company that paid for officers' time on traffic detail in exchange for a 60-40 revenue split.

The citizens' group, East Liverpool Citizens Against Traffic Cams, was led by Donald Bean, who urged the council not to launch an appeal. Bean argued that the citizens had spoken clearly with 72% of the vote against the use of traffic cameras, and that any appeal would be an attack on the will of the people of East Liverpool. He suggested that any concerns with the process of passing the traffic cam ordinance should be directed to the Ohio General Assembly, who wrote the law.

The city, on the other hand, argued that the citizens' group may have improperly filed the ballot issue, which could be determined through an appeal. Police Chief John Lane supported the appeal, stating that the cameras had improved road safety and generated significant revenue for the city. He also noted that the additional officers hired with the revenue would not lose their jobs.

The legal battle culminated in a vote in November 2019, where East Liverpool citizens voted overwhelmingly to disband the use of traffic cameras. The results were initially kept secret under the orders of Columbiana County Common Pleas Judge Scott A. Washam but were later released, showing a vote of 1,560 to 604 against the use of traffic cameras.

The city council ultimately voted against appealing the decision, respecting the will of the citizens and bringing an end to the legal battle.

The impact on city finances

The traffic cameras in East Liverpool, Ohio, were voted out in a November 2019 election, with 72% of voters rejecting their use. The decision followed a two-year legal battle between the city and members of the citizens' group East Liverpool Citizens Against Traffic Cams. The city council had voted unanimously to install the cameras, which were in use from 2017 until the vote in 2019.

The removal of the traffic cameras is expected to have a significant financial impact on the city of East Liverpool. The cameras generated approximately $1 million per year in revenue, with an 80-20 split between the police department and the general fund. This funding was used for manpower, equipment, departmental needs, and employee costs. The loss of this revenue stream could result in a budget deficit, with the city auditor predicting a worst-case scenario of a $500,000 deficit by the end of 2020. To offset this loss, the council voted to place a 5-mill operating levy on the March ballot, expected to generate about $400,000 annually.

The police chief, John Lane, argued that the cameras were not initially intended to generate funding but ended up bringing in significant revenue, which benefited the entire city, not just the police department. He also pointed out that the cameras improved road safety, reducing crashes and fatalities, particularly on State Route 11.

The use of traffic cameras for enforcement by the police department has been a divisive issue in East Liverpool, with citizens expressing concerns about "taxation without representation" and a preference for traditional enforcement methods, such as police officers armed with radar guns. However, the financial impact of the vote to remove the cameras will likely be felt across the city, potentially affecting various city services and projects.

The city had partnered with Blue Line Solutions, a private company, for a 60-40 revenue split on the traffic camera citations. This arrangement also included payment for the officers' time spent on traffic detail. While the financial details of this partnership are not publicly available, it is clear that the removal of the cameras will impact not only the city's finances but also those of the private company involved.

The role of the police department

The East Liverpool Police Department received 80% of the funding from the traffic cameras, with the remaining 20% going to the city's general fund. This revenue was used to support various initiatives within the department. According to Safety Service Director Brian Allen, the funding allowed the police department to employ three additional police officers, purchase nine new vehicles, and update their computer system. The improved technology and increased manpower benefited the department's overall operations and enhanced their ability to serve and protect the community.

However, some citizens and attorneys, such as Mark Hanni, argued that the use of traffic cameras by the police department amounted to "taxation without representation." They believed that the role of the police department should be focused on protecting and serving the community rather than raising revenue. This view was shared by many residents, who thought that police officers should physically pull over speeding drivers instead of relying on automated systems.

The police department, represented by Police Chief John Lane, defended the use of traffic cameras, citing improved safety and reduced fatalities on roads. Chief Lane also emphasized the financial benefits, stating that the program generated significant funding without raising taxes. He argued that the loss of this revenue stream could negatively impact the city's ability to support essential services.

Despite the police department's stance, the citizens of East Liverpool ultimately voted against the continued use of traffic cameras. This decision forced the police department to adapt and explore alternative sources of funding, such as a proposed levy, to maintain their operations and continue serving the community effectively.

Public opinion on traffic cams

The Case Against Traffic Cams

Citizens Against Traffic Cams, a group led by Donald Bean, strongly opposed the use of traffic enforcement cameras, arguing that they amounted to "taxation without representation" and that the police department's role was to "protect and serve, not to raise money for the community." This sentiment was echoed by Mark Hanni, an attorney for the group, who emphasized the option of utilizing police officers with radar guns for enforcement instead. The group's efforts culminated in a successful ballot initiative, with 72% of voters rejecting the use of traffic cameras.

Concerns About Revenue and Safety

On the other hand, some East Liverpool residents, including Police Chief John Lane, expressed concern about the financial implications of disbanding the traffic cam program. Lane highlighted the significant revenue generated by the cameras, approximately $1 million per year, and argued that it benefited the entire city, not just the police department. He also raised safety concerns, claiming that there had been no fatalities on State Route 11 since the implementation of the program.

Moving Forward

Despite the divided opinions, the city council ultimately voted against appealing the decision to end the use of traffic enforcement cameras. This aligned with Bean's plea to respect the will of the people and move forward without unnecessary division. However, the loss of revenue remained a pressing issue, with the city facing a potential deficit and considering alternative measures, such as a proposed levy, to offset the financial impact.

Frequently asked questions