Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Automated Traffic Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debate and public outcry over proposed Route 32 speed cameras centers on privacy and vendor control
Summary
More than a dozen speakers pressed the City Council on automatic traffic-enforcement devices proposed for Route 32, raising privacy, data-security, equity and legal due-process concerns; the council adopted a first reading but later agreed to limit and table the ordinance for redrafting and community input.
The City Council heard prolonged public comment and took extended debate on an ordinance to permit automated traffic-enforcement safety devices on Route 32. More than a dozen residents testified at the meeting, offering sharply divided perspectives on whether cameras will improve safety or create privacy and equity harms.
Opponents argued the cameras are surveillance with potential for mission creep. John Kirkland urged rejection, calling automated enforcement "a regressive tax" on working families and citing recent state action that scaled back a proposed state pilot program. "If we're serious about safety, we choose engineering, transparency, and accountability, not automated surveillance that turns our streets into toll roads," he said. Several speakers said similar programs in other Connecticut towns showed data had been used for purposes beyond traffic enforcement.
Supporters and the police chief described the proposal as a targeted safety pilot with human validation of captures. Police Chief Brian Wright told the council the devices are distinct from automatic license-plate readers and said the city would not pay out-of-pocket for the pilot. On operational questions, Chief Wright described an appeal and validation process and said initial fines would be $50 with a $15 vendor fee; data would be scrubbed after 30 days following adjudication procedures. "There is no cost to the city of New London out of pocket for this program," he said, and he emphasized there would be human review before any notice is mailed.
Council debate focused on procurement and scope. Councilors asked whether the ordinance, as written, would permit the mayor to sign contracts without returning to the council. Counsel and staff said that, as drafted, the ordinance authorizes the mayor to execute contracts for the specified pilot but that the council could limit the ordinance text to a single Route 32 location and require council approval for any expansion. After further discussion, councilors moved to limit scope and table the item so drafters could add narrower language and provide additional community input; the motion to table carried (6' 1).
