Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Monday, July 14, 2008

Fargo Proves Once Again That Traffic Fines Are More About Revenue Than Public Safety

Faced with losing out on $900,000 worth of revenue after they were caught illegally collecting certain traffic fines the City of Fargo is now wondering how they’re going to squeeze that money out of citizens anyway.

Here’s a thought: Maybe municipalities shouldn’t be so reliant on fines as a source of revenue.  After all, why do we have traffic fines?  Is it for revenue, or for public safety?

Comments

Avatar for Ken

Do they get to keep the money the already collected illegally? Or are they offering refunds (though I think it’s doubtful)?

Ken on July 14, 2008 at 11:27 am
Avatar for Rosemary E. Schmitt

Rob:

I really like this website.  I like your comments.
Very conservative.

Rosemary E. Schmitt on July 14, 2008 at 11:31 am

Fargo Police Chief Keith Ternes says the decision should not affect traffic enforcement.

Wanna bet?

Kevin on July 14, 2008 at 12:29 pm

I heard from someone who would know that Grand Forks cops are writing less ticfkets. Now ND has a point system if you get too many tickets you lose your liscense.

The only conclusion is that safety doesn’t matter.  It’s all about the money.

I haven’t had a ticket for years.  Has anyone tried gettimng their money back?


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on July 14, 2008 at 12:47 pm

After all, why do we have traffic fines?  Is it for revenue, or for public safety?

Silly question since you already know the answer.  Why do traffic fines increase all the time?  Are you going to drive safer if the fine is $100 instead of $50? 
The fine amounts and most of the traffic laws have little to do with safety.


You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

docdave on July 14, 2008 at 01:42 pm
Avatar for pete

Do not worry about a revenue shortfall - the Imperial Commission of Fargo will ram through more sales tax increases.

“Y’all Just Com’on Over to Fargo for All Yer Buyin’ (and Payin’wink Needs!”

pete on July 14, 2008 at 01:50 pm
Avatar for ec99

Ah yes.  Curt (I always have my toolbox open to cost GF taxpayers more for what I want but they don’t need) Kruen tried to pull this same rationalization a few weeks ago.  It reminds me of when the California Highway Patrol was negotiating a new contract with the state.  The sate wouldn’t budge, so the CHP started issuing warnings instead of giving tickets.  After a few days, and $100s of 1000s less coming into the coffers, the state relented.

ec99 on July 14, 2008 at 02:05 pm

Maybe Fargo needs to lay off some revenue officers since they are not as lucrative anymore.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on July 14, 2008 at 05:25 pm
Avatar for Roy Jacobsen

Question for y’all: How is a city government NOT going to treat traffic fines as revenue? From a strictly accounting standpoint, money coming into the city’s coffers from any source (other than transactions that reverse an expense, such as a refund) is most likely going to be treated as revenue.

When one of your sources of revenue decreases, you either look for ways to boost it back up again, or you try to increase other revenue sources. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but it’s a natural reaction, innit?

Roy Jacobsen on July 15, 2008 at 08:17 am
Rob
Rob
18069 comments
Send a private message

It’s a good question, Roy, and the answer is to treat revenue from fines as inconsistent revenue.  Don’t budget for it, and when it comes in put it into trust funds for things like building renovations, etc.

The problem now is that they budget for the revenue as though it’s always going to be there.  They spend the money before they have it, and then when it disappears they have to scramble to raise taxes or something.

The whole point of fines is to stop people from doing something we don’t like, right?  So the objective of such fines should be 0 revenue.  Granted, that’s never going to happen, but it really won’t happen if bureaucrats feel like they have to keep fine revenue high to keep their budgets in the black.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on July 15, 2008 at 08:22 am

I think more of an issue is what is the purpose of the fines?

They raised the fines NOT because of safety but as a way to tax people in a different way.

They shouldn’t do that.

I’ll say it again, now that fines are lower in Grand Forks, the police are apparently writing less tickets.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on July 15, 2008 at 09:51 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.