Public safety committee keeps automated traffic-enforcement discussion after hearing as residents raise equity, privacy and cost concerns

A public hearing on automated traffic enforcement safety devices (ATSED) on Oct. 6 drew more than a dozen residents who urged the city to delay or reject installation of red‑light and speed cameras, citing concerns about privacy, financial burden and whether cameras address root causes of crashes.

The hearing, held before the New London Public Safety Committee, closed after public comment; committee leadership said they will continue the matter in committee and schedule a follow‑up meeting with the police chief and, if possible, the vendor on Oct. 20 to answer technical and operational questions.

Residents who spoke at length said the devices would create a surveillance system while failing to address the causes of many local crashes. “A camera cannot address the human safety crisis,” said John Kirkland (71 Stewart Avenue), who argued impaired driving — not speed alone — was the core issue and called the cameras “a regressive tax.” Several other speakers made similar points, saying enforcement by camera would hit low‑income residents hardest and risk expanding government surveillance over time.

Speakers raised specific concerns about the vendor contract and operating costs. Multiple commenters cited an estimated vendor lease cost of $2,500 per camera per month and questioned personnel and appeals costs for the city; one speaker estimated personnel for review and appeals could add roughly $120,000 annually. Speakers also asked whether vendors or the city would be liable for guaranteed fees if tickets were not issued, and what remedies would exist for residents who cannot pay fines.

Several residents also argued cameras were being proposed for locations that do not match local crash patterns. Kirkland and others said only one of five recent fatal crashes occurred in a qualified census tract, and they asked the city to justify non‑high‑crash location choices in the proposed plan.

Other commenters advocated engineering solutions — speed humps, separated crossings and other traffic calming — instead of automated tickets. Concerns about data collection and sharing were raised repeatedly: commenters referenced out‑of‑state incidents where license‑plate data was accessed by federal agencies, and asked for stronger safeguards and oversight. One speaker noted the draft materials say images would be deleted after 30 days and urged independent auditing and community reporting on data access and deletion.

Committee members and several councilors said the public comments made clear there is more information to gather before advancing ordinance action. After public comment closed, the committee chair said the item would remain in Public Safety and be brought back with a presentation from the police chief and, if available, the vendor on Oct. 20. A separate effort to add a vendor presentation to the full council agenda on Oct. 6 failed on a council vote (4–3), meaning the council did not accept a vendor presentation that night.

The committee left several questions for staff and the police chief to address at the next meeting, including: the legal and contractual details of vendor fees; the appeals process and administrative costs; a clear map and justification of camera locations tied to crash history and average daily traffic; whether income‑based fine structures or warning periods would be adopted; and independent data retention and access safeguards.

The hearing closed by a committee motion; the committee recorded that it would continue the matter and solicit responses from the police department and vendor before any ordinance or formal council action.

What’s next: The Public Safety Committee scheduled a dedicated follow‑up meeting for Oct. 20 to hear the police chief and, if possible, the vendor on operations, contracts and data safeguards before advancing any ordinance to the full council.