The Board of Aldermen passed a resolution supporting red light cameras, but not before a freshman legislator objected — and sparked a possible new spirit of vigorous debate.
West Rock Alderman Darnell Goldson (pictured), who just took office, led an unsuccessful charge Monday against the resolution, which urges the state to allow cities to use cameras to catch people who run red lights.
His opposition sparked an unusually in-depth discussion at the board’s first meeting of the 2010 – 2011 term, setting the stage for a lively two years of legislative discourse.
Safe streets activists and the police chief heralded the resolution at a public hearing in December, where a committee gave it unanimous approval. At that hearing, about a dozen people spoke in favor. None opposed.
The DeStefano Administration would like to use the cameras to capture the license plates of red-light runners, then send them tickets in the mail. The aldermen’s resolution doesn’t set anything into law. It asks the state legislature to give cities the option of implementing their own red-light camera enforcement programs. City officials and some aldermen are gearing up to lobby the state Capitol a second time, after a similar red light camera law failed last legislative session. (Click here for a background story.)
As the aldermanic resolution came up for a final vote Monday, East Rock Aldermen Justin Elicker and Roland Lemar praised it as a key tool in a movement to create safer streets.
Then Goldson stood to speak. He posed questions none of his colleagues could answer: How many traffic injuries and deaths in New Haven are caused by red-light runners? Is there evidence the cameras would make the streets safer?
Goldson asked the board to hold off on passing the resolution until those questions are answered. He urged them to “slow down” before issuing public support to a law that could lead to a loss of privacy rights further down the line.
“I don’t see what the rush is,” he said.
He said he ran for alderman partly because people have the impression that the board makes decisions without full information, rushing into decisions that have lasting impact.
Goldson made a motion to send the resolution back to committee for further examination.
Fair Haven Alderman Alex Rhodeen countered that there was no “legislation” on the table, merely a public statement of support. Aldermen will have plenty of time to publicly debate the specifics if the state passes a red-light camera law, he noted. Before the city introduces any red-light cameras, it would have to draft, debate, and approve a new ordinance.
Goldson wasn’t convinced. He asked why aldermen needed to approve a resolution pledging the support of the full board — especially when several board members had a problem with the stance.
Newhallville Alderman Charles Blango said he worries that his community would be affected more than others by a red-light runner crackdown. He supported Goldson’s quest for more information, and seconded the motion to send the matter back to committee.
Lemar conceded there is “no rush” to this particular resolution. But he said the resolution got a fair hearing, and any further questions will be answered at the appropriate time — after the state passes a red-light camera law, and the city sits down to approve details of a local red-light camera enforcement plan. He said the topic is an urgent one, given the daily dangers of New Haven streets.
After much back and forth, Yale Alderman Mike Jones, a red light camera supporter, called for an end to the debate. Aldermen agreed to stop talking and take a vote.
Goldson’s motion to send the item back to committee failed by a margin of 6 to 23.
Not giving up in his quest to stall the resolution, he put forward a motion to table the item. That failed, too.
Goldson then made a personal plea. He said his father was the victim of illegal wiretapping by New Haven police. Goldson’s father was one of thousands. The 1960s-era New Haven operation — considered the most intensive illegal policy spying on political activists and dissidents in a period when local similar “red squads” operated throughout the country — cost the city $1.75 million in a class-action lawsuit settlement.
Goldson ticked off a series of incidents of government abuse of civil rights — Japanese American internment in the wake of the Pearl Harbor attack, the Tuskegee syphilis experiment on black sharecroppers — and warned against making the wrong decision.
“I love my city, … but I don’t always trust my government,” Goldson said. He urged the board not to issue a general approbation of a red light camera law without nailing down specifics that the board agrees with.
Hill Alderwoman Andrea Jackson-Brooks stood with him. She urged her colleagues to write their own letter instead of issuing a resolution on behalf of the board.
The debate took up the large part of the hour-long meeting — a rarity at the full board meetings. Usually, debate on specific bills takes place only at a public hearing before an aldermanic committee. When aldermen meet as a full board for a final vote, they tend to take quick votes without saying much.
Aldermen approved the red light camera resolution by a voice vote, with a handful of aldermen dissenting.
Board of Alderman President Carl Goldfield said he voted in favor because he has watched too many drivers barreling through red lights around town.
He said Monday was an indication of a new tenor on the board, which has eight new aldermen. There has rarely been this level of “full-blown debate” at full board meetings, he said. He praised the new aldermen for their enthusiasm.
With the new aldermen on board, he said, “these meetings can be a lot more interesting.”