In the April 15 Opinion page, “Red-light camera initiative out of sync with values of Redmond voters” (Redmond Reporter, April 15), Mr. Morris concludes that the red-light initiative (Bancam), is inconsistent with Redmond voters’ priorities, based upon voting patterns and city policy. His evidence for this?

• Passage of Lake Washington School District (LWSD) and parks bond levies

• Support of environment/regional transportation initiatives

• City of Redmond Budget by Priorities (BP).

Support of education, parks, and environment, regardless of one’s position on these issues, are mutually exclusive to the issue of red-light cameras.  What evidence exists to suggest that people who tax themselves for public education will also support red-light cameras?  What evidence is there that a supporter of public safety through use of such cameras is a supporter of parks and open space, environment, or trip reduction? Those connections appear arbitrary.

More relevant are questions voters might ask themselves about red-light cameras:

• Are red-light cameras truly a public safety mechanism or for revenue generation?

• If approved by City Council after the trial period, what are the long term effects?

As to whether red-light cameras are a safety mechanism or simply a revenue device, a reasonable person might conclude that if:

• The majority of tickets are rolling stops (as stated by city officials).

• There is no evidence to support that rolling stops of free right turns are an important public safety issue.

• Fines collected go to support City safety initiatives otherwise funded from other revenue sources.

If this is all true, then cameras are a revenue generation tool and not a public safety mechanism.

If cameras are a revenue generating device, then substantial history of government and taxation could lead to the belief that the operation will expand to achieve maximum revenue, rather than the stated goal of improved public safety.

Mr. Morris mentioned that voters of Redmond chose to tax themselves for both school and parks levies. These ballot measures gave voters opportunities to say “no.” Bancam provides the same opportunity for voters to raise taxes (revenue generation) that levies provided for education and parks. Should voters believe that the goal is public safety, and public safety benefits exist, Redmond voters may reject Bancam.

I can only imagine one reason why anyone would not want this issue put to a vote of the people; fear that the electorate will reject it, and the resulting revenue (tax) stream with it.

Mike Craddock, Redmond