No Bull, No Fluff, No Smudges
Your news source for
Flagler, Florida and Beyond

Palm Coast Sours on Traffic Cameras, Calling Fines “Outrageous,” “Overkill” and “Unfriendly”

| June 25, 2013

As unfriendly as it gets. (Kevin Baird)

As unfriendly as it gets. (Kevin Baird)

Last Updated: 9:19 p.m., with details from Gail Wadsworth’s letter.

“Outrageous.” “Overkill.” “Cumbersome.” “Unfriendly.” “Complicated.” “Bad directions.” “Out of proportion.” “Punishment doesn’t fit the crime.”

Click On:

That’s what many Palm Coast residents say of the more than 40 red-light spy-and-snap cameras gridding their streets.

On Tuesday, it’s what Palm Coast Coty Manager Jim Landon and some of the city’s council members were saying about a scheme even they now concede is more punishing than it should be, and too lucrative for the state.

It was a momentous, if qualified, shift. And it was largely prompted by Gail Wadsworth, Flagler County’s clerk of courts.

Landon and the council spoke as if they were hearing a message residents have been telegraphing with progressively louder voices since the city installed the cameras in 2008, then allowed American Traffic Solutions to quintuple the number of camera last year

Landon doesn’t want to do away with the cameras. He still believes in them as ways to encourage better driver behavior, more safety at intersections. But he blames the state for mucking up the cameras’ intent and severely6 limiting cities’ ability to administer the cameras as they find fitting. Landon isn’t sure how to diminish the cameras’ harsh image, but that’s just what he wants to do. And on Tuesday, he got the council’s green light to do so.

Early possibilities: give the city’s soon-to-be hired hearing officer more discretion to go easy on fines; increase the number of mailed notices to violators to reduce the chance of them not getting word of a ticket, which could cost them large sums down the line and even lead to their driver’s license suspension; explore ways to issue warnings instead of citations, or lesser fines, though neither of those possibilities are allowable currently, and would have to be enacted through state law; work with the clerk of court and ATS to make the system friendlier, to the extent possible, locally.

“I will tell you that I have always been an  supporter of this as an enforcement mechanism for running red lights,” Landon said. “How it works, I look at the numbers, I’m very confident that it has an impact on behavior and it makes our intersections safer.” But after discussions with Wadsworth—under whose jurisdiction red-light ticket appeals were channeled for the past three years, but no longer will be channeled after July 1—Landon had a change of heart about the disproportionate punishments the tickets can lead to. “I’m also going to tell you I think the program has taken off in bad directions,” Landon said.

Gail Wadsworth. (© FlaglerLive)

Gail Wadsworth. (© FlaglerLive)

Wadsworth wrote a letter to the council and to Landon on May 8 alerting them to the unusually high number of traffic tickets that became state-issued traffic citations, which happens when an individual doesn’t pay the fine–or doesn’t know that a camera ticket has been issued, as appears to be the case in increasing numbers. While traffic cameras may be useful in reducing collisions, Wadsworth wrote, “there are additional negative repercussions in which you may not be aware.”

Wadsworth noted that her office has been shouldering the extra processing work of the citations while the revenue from those tickets, once they become state-issued citations, goes entirely to the state, not to the city or to ATS. The source of the problem is the poor notification system to violators, many of whom seem unaware that they’ve been cited originally–triggering big fines and resentments. (See Wadsworth’s full letter below.)

“Mayor you’ve used that term, that $400 is outrageous, and I think we all agree that that $400 punishment doesn’t fit the crime,” Landon said to Jon Netts at this morning’s council meeting.

The city, he added, is “picking up a bad rap on this one because everybody things oh, we’re just trying to make money.”

“The perception is the more citations we have, the more money we make. That’s not true,” Landon said. He’s right: the city’s contract with ATS is such that the city gets a flat $700 payment for every camera emplacement, regardless of ticketing at that emplacement. But with 43 cameras in place, that means the city is getting $30,000 a month from the cameras regardless, or $360,000 a year. (It’s a much smaller amount than what Palm Coast netted before the state regulated the system, with far fewer cameras, which explains Palm Coast’s unhappiness with state “meddling.” The only way to make some money was to vastly increase the number of cameras.)

Council member Bill McGuire was also critical of the perception that it’s a money-making scheme. “We need to publish information as to how much the city participates, how much ATS gets, how much the state gets,” McGuire said, “because people that hate it, that’s the first thing they pull out of their pocket. This is just another way for the city to get in my pocket.”

“It absolutely is not a money-making scheme for the city,” Landon said.

“I know that, you know that,” McGuire says.

Jim Landon (© FlaglerLive)

Jim Landon (© FlaglerLive)

“But the more I look into it, I don’t blame them for saying that because I think it’s a money-making scheme for the state,” Landon continued. “I think the state is making a lot of money off of it, and so I think it’s turned into that. So then the public can’t distinguish, doesn’t matter who’s getting the dollars.”

By any definition, it is a money-making scheme, even for Palm Coast. And the numbers have been published, in their breakdown, repeatedly. But it is just as true that Palm Coast gets the least amount of money from the scheme. Just because it gets the least doesn’t mean it isn’t getting a bundle. It only means that the enormity of the scheme is such that Palm Coast’s share ends up looking as relatively small as it does.

Here are the numbers: For every $158 ticket issued, the state takes a $75 cut. In the May 27 to June 2 week, as reported by the Palm Coast Observer, the 43 cameras issued 424 citations. If every fine is paid, that’s a total of $67,000. The state’s cut is $31,800. Palm Coast’s cut is a mere $6,946. Where does the rest go? To ATS: $28,254. That’s just for a week’s worth of tickets.

On an annual basis, ATS’ cut would be close to $1.5 million, the state’s cut would be $1.65 million. That’s without counting the additional fines levied on those who appeal their case and lose, or those who choose not to pay their ticket and end up paying $400 or more to restore their driver’s license.

In other words, Palm Coast’s red-light cameras are sucking out of the local economy more than $3 million a year—or the equivalent of 85 jobs with annual salaries of $35,000. That’s $3 million that does not circulate to local businesses, merchants, services.

(Palm Coast isn’t strictly limited to that $700 per camera payment. The city stands to earn any dollars above the $4,250 generated by a single camera emplacement. For that to happen, that camera would have to generate more than 66 citations. Most cameras don’t. But a handful do.  So in reality the city stands to make a few tens of thousand dollars more than its flat $360,000 cut.)

“All that money is going to the state and it really is overkill, and I think the whole process has become, let’s say, unfriendly,” Landon said. “I don’t know how we can do this, but I think we need to try to get more local reality back into this, or local common sense, because it’s gotten out of proportion of what it was intended, in my opinion. I think with our own hearing officer, and working with ATS and the clerk of the court, that a hearing officer has some discretion too, and that there’s some things that we could work on too to try to make this so that hopefully it still changes behavior, but not to the point of any outrageous fines for running a red light.”

McGuire noted that the town he left in St. Louis had its own cameras—owned and ran them—and issued $20 fines. Council member Jason deLorenzo wondered why a warning for a first infraction wasn’t an option-especially since 87 percent of tickets are issued to first-time offenders, which suggests that the system does cause drivers not to re-offend. That’s the city’s goal. But a first-time warning would drastically reduce the  financial profit at all three levels—ATS, state and Palm Coast—and it isn’t legal for now.

In sum, don’t look for those cameras to disappear any time soon. But the council’s thinking, led by Landon, is changing, as council members become more aware of the city’s image, and the damage it’s enduring because of the lights: the punishing fines may benefit the state and ATS more, but neither the state nor ATS are taking the blame, let alone paying the cost. Palm Coast is.

“Anyway, the conversation is not over,” Netts said. “Yes, we want to take advantage of the liberalization the state has put in, we want to do whatever we can do to improve the situation. Yes, this conversation with the clerk of the court needs to continue, and with ATS, and the goal is to make this more fair, more equitable, more reasonable.”

Gail Wadsworth’s Letter

48 Responses for “Palm Coast Sours on Traffic Cameras, Calling Fines “Outrageous,” “Overkill” and “Unfriendly””

  1. The problem with the curve! says:

    Want to promote traffic safety and really lower the fines…..
    Adjust the yellow segment of each light to a 5 -5 1/2 second minimum.
    Watch the violations drop.
    Yet traffic safety, the alleged reason for the cameras stays the same.

  2. B. Rabbit says:

    I can’t get out of this “PLASTIC” city quick enough. What a cesspool of degradation. 19 years is way to long to watch this place go from beautiful little town to “DUMP”.

  3. Ralph Belcher says:

    I’m surprised on one has come up to the dias during public participation demanding in a Ronald Regan voice “Mr. Gorbechev uh Landon et al, TEAR-DOWN-THESE-CAMERAS. It’s an unweildly system at best in dealing with the infractions. Hire one or two motorcycle cops to focus more strongly on the desired intersections and have a ticket spree. This will bear in the factor of discretion, warnings, and so on that doesn’t enter the picture with an automated system. Knock on wood I haven’t been cited yet on these contraptions. But it is ONEROUS and goes a long way in giving the City a bad rap. Who will want to hold another lacrosse tournament/soccer tournament in Palm Coast when a number of parents getting notices in the mail? It is never OK to blow through a red light, but ATS sure looks like an outfit that treats it’s clients like bird droppings at best. Those who get a ticket through a uniformed police officer sure would have a lot more respect for the system than those being caught by a robot… and I think that it produces a bit of stigma that might encourage some of the offenders to straighten up… being snared in flashing BLUE, not white lights.

  4. BeachLvr84 says:

    I live in nearby Flagler Beach and drive out of my way to avoid Palm Coast due to the cameras. I’m not a chronic red light runner – I don’t even recall the last time I did run one but I don’t like the idea of big brother creeping down my neck. I also don’t believe the premise behind keeping our residents safe. It’s a load of B.S.

    • Rick says:

      As far as I’m concerned & the way it really is, you’re right on track BeachLvr. Road safety takes a back seat to this cheap & low life income scheme for the town.

  5. downinthelab says:

    My daughter is 2 and half, just a little tape recorder in the back seat. I have not yet had to pay any fines, but she knows to say “go” on green and “stop” on red.

    She also says “Stupid red light cameras.”

    And “Hold onto your sippie cup!”

  6. Ron Hubbard says:

    Gee, all this hate traffic photo cameras and sudden sanctimonious talk…..could elections be that close????

  7. Charles "Bub" Robson says:

    The Cameras are not constitutional and never will be. These cameras do not provide “Due Process of Law” which assures a person they can confront its accuser. These cameras can confront nothing. It is nothing less then a money grabbing scheme. It is going to cost the cities a ton of money when they have to repay citizens after the High court strikes the camera law down, hopefully sooner then later.

  8. Traffic cameras are just another form of Policing for Profit as Capitalism distorts our Justice System. These companies are bottom-feeders and take a 40% cut of the tickets while creating MORE dangerous intersections by fixing the lengths of yellow lights to entrap drivers. You can read about how private companies and crooked politicians have turned our Police forces on their ear in every attempt to squeeze money out of the general public at

  9. Nanci Whitley says:

    If you don’t run the won’t get a ticket. I have the right not to be t-boned. If you rear end some one who stops at a yellow light….you don’t have control of your vehicle.

  10. Harley dude says:

    Landon’s real problem is that the state get more of a share now.

  11. Gus says:

    Ever hear the expression sitting duck: Folks, I didn’t make this up?

    sitting duck
    a helpless or easy target or victim: a sitting duck for shady financial schemes.
    1940–45 Unabridged
    Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.

  12. fla native says:

    Landon’s arrogance is off the chart. He needs to go and take Netts with him.

  13. Ron says:

    Just when I thought this whole thing was calming down, along comes Landon to stir up all of the red light camera whiners.

    Thanks, Jim.

  14. Nancy N. says:

    87% of the tickets are going to first-time offenders? And the city is justifying their presence by saying that number means that the cameras are causing people to not re-offend? I have two things to say to that:

    1) How many of those tickets are going to out-of-town drivers (read: TOURISTS) who aren’t re-offending because they – and their money – are never setting foot in Palm Coast again?

    2) No driver is perfect. Even if you drive perfectly 99.9% of the time, with the town blanketed in cameras, you will eventually get a ticket. I pass 6 cameras between my house and Walmart. If I drive 99.9% perfectly through the intersections, my math says I will get a ticket once every 83 trips (that’s not quite right because I won’t encounter a red light every time, but you get my drift). Since I go about once a week…that’s about every 18 months. Even with 99.99% accuracy dealing with the red lights, that’s still once every 833 trips, so about every 6 years. In other words, it’s unavoidable…it will happen eventually. Are these people not reoffending because the cameras are teaching them a lesson or because they are good drivers all the time who statistics are just catching up with?

  15. tax payer says:

    That’s $3 million that does not circulate to local businesses, merchants, services. is the bottom line my business has decreased since the lights went up..

  16. real people says:

    Wow their policy changes quickly when Landon and Nets don’t collect all the money, jerks

  17. HJ says:

    Lets face it …. It’s a money making scam!!
    I live in Flagler County but avoid Palm Coast as much as possible..I go to Ormond to shop . It’s worth the little extra mileage and cost of gas to avoid the high cost of a ticket and the possibility of running into the back of someone who panics when the light turns yellow and slams on the brakes ….the loss is for Palm Coast in the long run…. Because more and more people are going to avoid the area as well …. It’s over kill with all the cameras on 100—- hasta la vista baby !!!!

  18. confidential says:

    Palm Coast Council should have never approved all the latest additional cameras, this is a money making travesty now that does not help the economic recovery of Plam Coast!

  19. Bernard Henry says:

    There is something fishy going on! My daughter swears that she didn’t run the red light and I believe her. When we went online and watched the video, the yellow light came back on after she crossed the stop line. The red light also went to a different shade of red when the car crossed the stop line. We broke the video down frame by frame, and this is what we saw. I think if you are close, they are helping the red light along so they will get more violations. In other words they are coloring in the red and blacking out the yellow. It certainly appears that way. As soon as I wrote in with my complaint , they took down my video. I’m afraid this whole thing is a good idea gone bad! Private enterprise has no place running this system.

  20. sonny says:

    the communist city in florida you couldn’t pay me to live there

  21. Joe says:

    These quotes say it all:

    The city, he added, is “picking up a bad rap on this one because everybody thinks oh, we’re just trying to make money.”
    The only way to make some money was to vastly increase the number of cameras.)
    “It absolutely is not a money-making scheme for the city,” Landon said.

    • Anonymous says:

      I also find myself staying off Palm Coast Pkwy as often as possible now; as Nancy N states above even the best of drivers will eventually make the percentage of odds and get a ticket. It does give Palm Coast a bad rap with Toursits and any other event that the City looks to host. With the trickle down effect of those avoiding Palm Coast due to the outrageous number of cameras in one City… its no wonder Palm Coast also still remains so high on the Unemployment levels. Its a bad rap all the way around for the residents that already live here, for the tourists and for those looking at Palm Coast for business and/or purchasing a home. Imagine someone home shopping here and before they purchase they get a Red Light camera ticket in the mail from Palm Coast. You can drive thru St Augustine from end to end and there isnt a camera one, with all the tourists, events and residents they do not feel this so call need to install camera’s.

  22. Sherry Epley says:

    This is pure and simply a money making scheme. . . a TAX by any other name. It seems outrageous to me that the company who puts the cameras in place should take so much of the pie, then the state of Florida, and then the county/city. Regardless of who the money goes to. . . we do not have due process. It’s now a case of machines OVER humans.

    If better safety were the true motivation, our traffic signals should and could be set so that there is a 2 or 3 second delay between when when one side displays a red/yellow signal and the other side displays the green. . . enough time to clear the intersection. This technique is widely used in Europe and works very well.

  23. Linda says:

    Thank you Ms. Wadsworth. What you have addressed in simple terms is a constitutional violation, that is, lack of notice.
    Having been a victim of Palm Coast acting unconstitutionally in another circumstance, (as decided in the Circuit Court to which I appealed their acts against me – case on file with Palm Coast named as a party), I am sickened that there is so little regard by this City for its residents and their rights.
    And for those saying an election must be near, Ms. Wadsworth was recently re-elected, has nothing at stake right now, and remains the one Republican I will continue to vote for. She does care, unlike the City of Palm Coast and its officials (elected and un-elected).
    As an aside, my understanding is that Palm Coast also put liens on homes for Code Enforcement violations. If true, that is unconstitutional under the Florida State Constitution which protects the Homestead from such liens.
    Why do we have to live under a city government that is like this. Could someone who has some of the authority please have the guts to join Ms. Wadsworth and do what’s right for the citizens of the United States who happen to reside in Palm Coast?

  24. Annon says:

    The thing that is the most distrubing is the fact that the City Manger keeps saying that the lights are correcting a traffic problem. However, how can you be correcting a traffic problem if the citation is sent to the registered owner. If you choose to fight a red light ticket because you were not driving the vehicle in order to avoid the fine, you have to get a signed sworn affidavit telling the state who was driving the vehicle. This is unconstitutional. There is no burden of proof on the state, they don’t have to proove that you commited the traffic infraction. Yes the videos that they try to intimidate you with show the vehicle running the red light but no driver. So, are the registered owners of vehicles the traffic problem that needs to be corrected or the actual driver who is driving the vehicle? To further my point does this now mean that a deputy or a police officer can follow a car, witness a traffic infraction, look up the registered owner, write a citation, take it to the PD or Sheriff’s Office and have it certified mailed to the registered owner. These traffic cameras open a wide variety of possiblity due to the state statutes unconstitutional basis.

    On top of that, the only reason that the Palm Coast City Manager and Council are dealing with the complaints about the red light cameras is because they don’t like their cut of the pie. They are unconcerned with the citizens of Palm Coast and more concerned about how they are going to fill the city’s pockets with our cash. The City is not the only one to blame. ATS is a private company who is profiting from traffic infractions tht occur on state, county and city roads that are maintained by those entities. They front little to no money for instilation and up keep of the cameras and then rake in the profits. Then the state backs cameras because of the incredible amount of profit that is brought in by them.

    This is all about money and peoples constitutional rights are being trampled, because of modern governments greed and callusness. What our state has done is not right. What are city is doing is backing a bogus state statute, and the only people who suffer our are citizens.

  25. Stephen Donaldson says:

    Lets be blunt, Palm Coast did RLC for MONEY! Not safety.

    The install earlier was about MONEY!

    City Manager Jim Landon and some council members said the city would make very little money from the deal. That’s not true: the city would have made very little money had its stuck with the 10 cameras, or approved adding only a few. But the way it wrote the contract with ATS, the more cameras are installed, the more money the city makes, because the city is guaranteed $700 a month per camera. That means its revenue from the cameras by year’s end will be guaranteed to jump from a maximum of what would have been $7,000 a month (barely enough to cover the city’s costs) to $25,200, a substantial monthly revenue that, annualized, would yield the city just over $300,000.

    THE ONLY REASON Palm Coast “officials” are complaining on the state is that they don’t like rules getting in the way of the RLC FRAUD!

  26. A couple of interesting facts that are not well known:
    1. The same technology which allows ATS to know if you ran a red light can also be used to calculate the speed of the offender as he/she ran the light, and may in the future result in an additional fine for speeding. That should double the cost of the fine if the City decides to go that route; and
    2. The video of the offense is available as a matter of public record from ATS to aid lawyers like me whose clients have been the victims of red light runners.
    In addition to the red light runners I have seen an increase in the number of clients who have been rear ended when they stopped at red lights. And the excuse given is that my client stopped for a yellow light! Duh!!!


  27. Anonymous says:

    Nanci Whitley says “I have a RIGHT not to be t-boned”. Really? Did God himself declare that anytime you get on the road, you must not face the possibility of an accident? Enjoy your red light cameras palm coast… I’ve already stopped shopping in your community and head to Saint Augustine instead where there are no cameras. For all you that want even “more safety”, I suggest voluntarily committing yourself to the local prison. Its got great security, you are surrounded by police officers all day, and there is no chance you will be “T boned”.

  28. Camera Shy says:

    This is UNCONSTITUTIONAL ! This is ROBBERY ! This is county and state political ASSAULT with intent to empty our wallets. Just like with the DRONES flying around here “pretending” to be innocent real estate drones. They are UNCONSTITUTIONAL as well. If EVERYONE would REVOLT against these CRIMINAL acts we can stop this MADNESS .

  29. Nancy N. says:

    Last night shortly after 8pm when I was down on SR 100 coming back from the beach, I was approaching the light at the hospital intersection. There was two cars sitting at the red light on SR 100, one each direction. A stream of cars was exiting the hospital turning left onto SR100 towards the freeway using the light that had turned green a moment earlier.

    The red light camera at that intersection flashed THREE times for the traffic that was moving legally through the intersection. It was obvious the flashes were for legally traveling vehicles because no other vehicles were moving within several car lengths of the intersection’s stop lines.

    Something is WRONG with the cameras at that intersection! Aside from the possibility of false tickets being issued, it’s a safety hazard as well. It was dusk and when light is dim or dark, those flashes can be quite startling and distracting for drivers. Having them go off when they aren’t needed, and several in rapid succession, is just asking for trouble.

    • Rick says:

      Nancy, I believe quite a few people are well aware of this. But, do you really think any of the town cronies actually give a rats arse? Take a look at the 2 previous week’s activity of this ‘camerasection’ as I refer to them; 45 citations out of 260 flashes & the week previous 119 out of 580.
      Then you have ‘camerasections’ such as Old Kings Road (north) @ Kings Way, 5 whole citations issued out of 264 flashes. Why the other 259 taken, just for the fork of it?
      Then what’s the story with all the wasted images &/or negs?

  30. Crusty Old Salt says:

    Red light cameras a money grab by State, Municipalities, and Camera companies? This article pretty much sums it up.

  31. Hypocracry says:

    Funny how Landon thought the cameras were great until the state started taking the majority of the money. Now they are horrible and unfriendly. I really like the fact that he thinks nobody is smart enough to see what a hypocrite he is.

  32. RG says:

    My driving habits have changed due to red light cams. Being new to the area. our first day here last year my wife was following me as i drove the uhaul in front of her. Thru belleTerre and cypress. it turned yellow for me and i couldnt even try to stop cause i had atruck full of our life belongings. My wife couldnt see it turn yellow cause of the height of the back of the U hAul blocking her vision. She got a cam ticket weeks later great welcome wagon surprise. Now i tend to stomp on the gas 20 yards before the intersection just to avoid the yellow turning red before i get thruthe intersection. I never did that before in my life. I always drove slow
    thru intersections to be safe. I have also slammed my brakes hard to stop fearing i would not be able to make it threw the changing light. My driving habits have changed. Im 58 and never got a red light ticket in my life.This is just wrong.

  33. Brian says:

    As I stated in a previous comment on another post regarding these cameras……..all we have to do is obey the laws and avoid running red lights…..PERIOD! The minute these cameras begin costing the city more money than they make (or a possible re-election), they will be the first ones to remove them. Here is the proof in the pudding…….plain and simple.

    The state just increased its piece of the pie, which means the city will now see its revenue stream hacked off at the knees. In turn, the city still gets $700 a month per camera, but any of the city commissioners or city officials who chose to continue to endorse these cameras will surely lose re-election next year. So suddenly, the cameras become evil according to our elected officials here in Palm Coast. Gee…..SHOCKING isn’t it? The city suddenly loses money to the state due to a new law that was passed……..and now the cameras are no longer a good idea! Next week…….somebody might even suggest removing the cameras to start a coup d’etat in a personal political attempt to slingshot into guaranteeing their re-election. Rest assured…..any elected official that runs on the premise of eliminating the red light cameras in Palm Coast will win 90% of the vote…..regardless of party affiliation!

  34. Winny says:

    To Palm Coast Elected Officials, Being in law enforcement for now twenty years as put me in a place where I can see first hand the results of the decisions being made by you, and the reaction from the public as well. I not going to get in to stats, money or safety in regards to these cameras, and you may be in every right to put these things up at every intersection you want. But, it looks to me that you may have created a monster that will not go away. Justify these devices in any way you want. At the end of the day, they do not work for your community, and that is where your problem lies. When I read multiple postings of people going else where to conduct business because of these cameras, I have to believe that this is true. Because even though I am still a Law Enforcement Officer and do my very best to drive like the professional I should be. I also go out of my way to advoid them and shop outside of the city when possible. In the end, you might want to revisit your decision to bring them to your community, or at least reduce there numbers. I am sure a happy medium could be reach between you and your public if you did.

  35. Bob says:

    I’m thinking that living in Palm Coast seems more like living in a “Big Brother” state than a wonderful place to retire. When the word spreads to new retirees about the condition we are living in they may very well consider living in another town with a more friendly attitude towards it’s people…This just may be the cause of an economic downward spiral for our town…Perhaps the ramifications of these cameras was not initially seen by the people responsible for their implementation.

  36. J. says:

    Here is my take on these cameras it was a bad idea from the beginning. They aren’t constitutional they violate the fifth amendment. Next I find it ironic that now these city officials find this to be a bad idea. Could it be that they ran some red lights and they can’t flash a city id to get out of it? This just shows the short sided vision these officials have. I say take down these cameras. Oh a side note ATS is owned by Bain Capital so all you smart Republicans that thought Mitt Romney was your guy what do you think of him now? Lol……

  37. Sharon says:

    Run down and kill a guy on a bicycle and the fine is less than running a red per a camera?? Really??

  38. James C. Walker says:

    The $158 ticket price is fixed by the state with $83 going to the state (52.5%) and another HUGE cut going to the camera vendor who is likely in Arizona. All told the cameras strip 80% to 90% of the total money grab out of the local economies – permanently.

    Cities get the VERY short straw, Tallahassee and the greedy camera company get most of the loot.

    Why ANY city official would stand for this rip off is a very serious question. If they had any honor and any wish to protect the economies of their constituents, ALL the cameras would be removed.

    If local officials don’t remove the cameras, citizens need to remove the officials from office.

    It is all a money grab scam.

    James C. Walker, Life Member-National Motorists Association

  39. J says:

    This is a classic case, of when you think you know it all. Landon has been working in, on and around government for so long that the loud pop that might sound like a sonic boom is his head being pulled out of his rear end.

    Classic crisis management, get ahead of the issue and stay in front of the story.

  40. Lonewolf says:

    Just imagine how “unfriendly” it would be if your child were run over in a crosswalk by a red-light runner.

  41. Flagler Historian says:

    See how small Ohio town similiar to Palm Coast was almost destroyed by signing up for
    the traffic cameras. It was a logical idea that became an extortion racket. It is already clear the money is not really going to Palm Coast. The camera lobby is flocking to our state legislators much like the internet gambling people did. The results will be much the same until there is a terrible scandle.


    Is there a clause in the contract the City of Palm Coast signed that gives heavy financial penalties
    should they decide to turn off the cameras? I bet there is. Who can check on this?

    We have a fine city that is going sour with the public’s lack of faith in our government here. Some day a new group will run for election using this as their platform. They might not be better but I will vote for them regardless.l

  42. Gia says:

    As usual a stinking raw deal from Palm Coast Gov. There is no reason what so ever why the state should get the biggest amount of $$$ of the fine when a resident of this city is ticketed.

  43. Tom says:

    I can hardly wait for election time….in the mean time all my money goes towards shopping in St Augustine. I stay away from Palm Coast at all cost. I don’t run red lights, never have but don’t want to have live with the thought of receiving a ticket in the mail. 43 cameras for a town this size is absolutely ridiculous. I only travel US1, that’s it.

Leave a Reply

FlaglerLive's forum, as noted in our comment policy, is for debate and conversation that adds light and perspective to articles. Please be courteous, don't attack fellow-commenters or make personal attacks against individuals in stories, and try to stick to the subject. All comments are moderated.

Read FlaglerLive's Comment Policy | Subscribe to the Comment Feed rss flaglerlive comment feed rss

More stories on FlaglerLive

FlaglerLive Email Alerts

Enter your email address to get alerts.


support flaglerlive palm coast flagler county news pierre tristam
news service of florida
FlaglerLive is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization | P.O. Box 254263, Palm Coast, FL 32135 | Contact the Editor by email | (386) 586-0257 | Sitemap | Log in