Allan Appel File Photo
Newhallville Alderman Charles Blango.
Lawmakers in Hartford claim that a New Haven alderman inadvertently killed one of the city’s top legislative priorities this year: red-light cameras.
A proposal to allow cities like New Haven to install cameras to catch red-light runners and issue fines effectively died in the legislature’s Judiciary Committee Tuesday morning.
The proposal was referred to the committee six days ago. The committee has seven days to act on a bill to keep it alive in the session. The committee decided not to act on the bill Tuesday, and the committee doesn’t meet Wednesday, so the bill is in effect dead.
New Haven had lobbied hard for the bill, local “traffic-calming” advocates.
Newhallville Alderman Charles Blango supported the bill, too — perhaps too much.
A surge of late opposition bill helped kill it Tuesday. New Haven State Rep. Gary Holder-Winfield supported the measure but said much of the recent opposition was generated by an April article published by the Independent. In the article, Alderman Blango recommends using the cameras to help catch not just speeders and light-runners but other kinds of criminals like thieves or murderers. (Holder-Winfield and Blango are erstwhile political rivals; New Haven’s Democratic machine backed Blango in an unsuccessful attempt to win the state legislative seat in 2008.)
New Haven State Rep. Pat Dillon said that when she arrived at the committee’s Democratic caucus after the article appeared, the word around the room was Blango’s suggestions had killed the measure.
When reached by phone Tuesday, Blango rejected the notion that his ideas effectively squashed the measure.
“To say that I have that much power… come on, I think they’re smarter legislators that that,” he said. “If that killed the bill it was already in their hearts to kill the bill.”
Blango said he supported the measure and pointed out that he has no vote in Hartford. He said he wanted to enable the camera footage to be used to catch other criminals because his neighborhood is crippled by fear from violent crime. The police are doing their jobs but people are afraid to speak out when they witness a crime, he said.
Crime is out of control in New Haven and folks have not been willing to adequately address the issue in the 48 years he has lived here, Blango said. But in the end, he doesn’t craft the language of legislation, he said.
Regardless of what Blango’s intentions were, Holder-Winfield said the April 27 story left people with the impression that the cameras would be used for purposes other than what the measure intended.
And they haven’t been shy about speaking out against them. Dillon said recently constituent opposition to the idea has become rather hostile. She has received angry calls to her home and emails, all basically saying, “Don’t spy on us,” she said.
Dillon, who generally supported the measure, said she also had concerns about aspects of it and had intended to offer amendments. The issue comes down to a debate over safety versus privacy, she said, and she wasn’t the only legislator grappling with it.
The Committee’s Co-Chairman Rep. Gerald Fox, D‑Stamford, said he had supported the measure in the Transportation Committee but said there was enough disagreement in the Democratic caucus alone that it made sense to hold it.
Many had concerns over the fact that there would be no way to appeal a ticket received as a result of the cameras. Some were uncomfortable also with the “Big Brother” aspect of having cameras recording citizens, Fox said.
I used to be against reg light cameras for the various privacy and revenue generation issues that they have, however years of living in a city more as a pedestrian than a driver has made me an advocate of them.
At the very least there needs to be a conversation as to how to manage aggressive driving in cities. There is a world of difference in a place where traffic moves at an efficient but not breakneck clip, and one where the constant barreling of traffic makes you have to think twice every time you step into the street.