Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Speed Cameras topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waka City Council rejects ordinance to authorize school‑zone speed cameras after heated debate
Summary
After extensive public testimony and council debate about safety, equity and economic effects, the Waka City Council voted 5–2 on June 1 to defeat an ordinance that would have authorized automated speed cameras in school zones. Supporters said cameras would quickly improve safety and provide revenue; opponents urged engineering fixes and warned of unintended consequences.
The Waka City Council voted down an ordinance that would have allowed automated speed cameras in school zones after more than an hour of public comment and council debate.
Councilwoman Fox, who introduced the measure, said the cameras were both a safety and revenue tool and that residents and school staff had urged action. "I introduced this for two reasons. Number one, we need safer streets," Fox said during debate. Supporters, including parents and teachers who spoke during public comment, described recent pedestrian collisions and urged a trial implementation.
Opponents on the council and several members of the public said cameras are not the only tool and argued for permanent design changes such as lane narrowing, roundabouts and speed humps that operate 24/7. Councilman Dubois pressed for an independent traffic engineering assessment before adopting automated enforcement, noting that cameras operate only during specified hours and do not address off‑hour crashes.
The ordinance (26030) was moved by Councilwoman Fox and seconded by Councilwoman Gonzalez. The roll‑call result was: Yes — Councilwoman Fox, Councilwoman Gonzalez; No — Councilman Canoya, Councilman Dubois, Councilwoman Harmon, Councilwoman Sierra, President Gendry. The ordinance was defeated 5–2.
Councilmembers who opposed the ordinance raised a range of objections during debate, from concerns about relying on fines as a revenue source to worries that drivers would divert onto smaller streets. "If speed cameras really provided safety, the revenue generated would fall to zero because everybody would slow down," one opponent argued during the discussion.
Supporters told the council that camera programs in other Rhode Island cities led to large revenues initially and, more importantly, reduced citations over time as driver behavior changed. Several public commenters said their primary motive was child safety near schools: "If speed cameras can help prevent even one child ... aren't they worth considering?" one parent asked during public comment.
The council did not adopt an alternative traffic‑engineering plan at the meeting. Several council members urged staff to explore road‑design changes, enhanced signage, and targeted capital improvements as complementary measures.
Next steps: with the ordinance defeated, the council did not authorize automated school‑zone enforcement at this meeting. Council members and staff suggested they would consider engineering assessments and other safety measures in subsequent sessions.
