The Pelican Post

A feasibility study by Burk-Kleinpeter Inc. and HDR Engineering emphasizes the economic and social benefits of the proposed high-speed rail linking New Orleans to Baton Rouge. Currently under revision, the final report is due March 16.

With an estimated 78% probability of having a positive return on investment, the study claims that the value creation offsets the project’s costs. However, a Baton Rouge news site reports that Louisiana would bear the burden of $11 million to $14 million in annual subsidies. These costs are too high for a state already facing large deficits.

The BR-NO rail has been debated for years, but the controversy heated up when the state turned down stimulus money that would have funded its creation. While Bobby Jindal rejects the plan due to its high costs, Cato Institute scholar Randal O’Toole concentrates on the project’s hidden negative impacts.

In a Pelican Institute publication, O’Toole argues that the new high-speed rails will be “an expensive slippery slope” leading to higher costs for Louisiana taxpayers. The project would not relieve overall traffic congestion, and only few Louisiana residents will use the new trains. In other words, the possible economic benefits from new rails line will be greatly offset by high maintenance costs and low customer usage.

O’Toole believes that Louisiana should not build new rail lines; it should instead spend the federal stimulus money on safety measures by improving signaling and crossing gates on existing lines.

NPR reports on a public backlash in Arizona against the state’s use of highway traffic cameras, similar to the controversial cameras in New Orleans. This has resulted in Governor Jan Brewer announcing that she will not renew the state’s contract with Redflex, the Australian “photo enforcement” company hired to install and maintain the cameras.

Meanwhile, a number of bills intended to kill the program have been introduced into the State Legislature. Similar to the case here in New Orleans, criticism of these cameras in Arizona has been fueled by the charge that it is a transparent attempt by the local government to bring in more revenues under the pretense of transportation safety, a charge even reiterated by Governor Brewer.

While Arizona can at least boast a discernible decline in highway fatalities since the implementation of this camera network, the municipal government of New Orleans lacks any comparable justification for its overreach into the daily lives of New Orleanians.

Unless city officials can present statistics verifying that the presence of a camera at the corner of St. Charles and Louisiana has done anything to make motorists safer (which some argue it most certainly has not), we can assume that the only byproduct of its installation has gone straight into the pockets of City Hall.

Recently, Jefferson Parish put an end to its traffic camera program after it was revealed that the company in charge of installing the cameras planned to give a portion of the collected revenues to a lobbyist who had steered Jefferson Parish in their direction. The company in question?: Redflex.

This revelation begs a reiteration of the question: what are the real motives for the New Orleans traffic cameras? This question, however, is essentially rhetorical; our municipal leaders need to follow the lead of Jefferson Parish and Arizona and pull the plug on this shameful chapter.

The latest candidate forum took place on Friday, January 15^th at Loyola University New Orleans and had as the central topic public corruption.

Since the beginning of the mayor’s race candidates have shed light on the worse features of New Orleans, public corruption being just one of them. Acknowledging the city’s weaknesses and proposing solutions are essential steps for a better New Orleans. However, addressing the problems only during the mayor’s race and forgetting about them after Election Day is not effective.

Corruption should be constantly controlled and minimized. The passion with which the candidates outlined their plans needs to persist after the winner has been inaugurated.

Why is public corruption such a terrible trait for a city?

Not only does political corruption deny citizens the ability to rely on their local government, it also limits the city’s economic growth. Looking at New Orleans it seems clear that corruption goes hand in hand with a low economic growth rate. A high level of corruption has been associated with a low level of investment, which then causes a lower per capita income. Political corruption behaves like a tax by diminishing incentives to invest, reducing the effectiveness of government expenditures, and limiting economic growth. Overall, corruption is a negative-sum game (we all lose.)

How can public corruption be minimized?

A transparent and accountable administration that discloses all public budget and contracting information would reduce the incentives and opportunities for corruption. What’s more, reducing the power of public officials would eliminate incentives to demand bribes. Transparency and limited government have to be on politicians’ agendas in order to effectively fight corruption in New Orleans.

It was encouraging to hear six out of six candidates stress the need for transparency along with full disclosure of information. They also expressed the need to increase the accountability of the local government and guarantee zero tolerance on corruption. These are essential elements for an honest, transparent administration. Will the future mayor of New Orleans keep in mind the promises and the passion with which corruption was addressed? We hope so.

More details on Friday’s mayoral forum can be found on NOLA.com.

This promises to be an interesting event.

More than five years and six million dollars later, the “crime cameras” planted around New Orleans have finally yielded their first conviction.   No, the cameras didn’t catch a violent crime where someone’s life or property was in immediate danger.  It was just a run-of-the-mill drug dealer peddling ecstasy pills on a street corner.   Meanwhile, a local civil jury and a federal criminal grand jury are both considering serious allegations concerning the people and institutions  who brought us these cameras.

As a report by the New Orleans Inspector General reveals, the cost of the program over three years was almost three times the original estimate given by the Mayor’s Office of Technology: $6.6 million, rather than $2.4 million.  That’s more than $2 million a year that could have gone to salaries for new police officers or investigators for the District Attorney’s office — real people solving real crimes.

New Orleans’ experience with these cameras is unfortunately rather typical — a 2003 report to Congress by the U.S.  General Accounting Office found little or no evidence of “crime prevention effectiveness of CCTV [closed-circuit television].”  Despite that report, Congress has continued to let the federal Department of Homeland Security disperse grants to state and local agencies for more of the creepy cameras.  In fact, it was such a grant –  for just $1 million — that provided the initial impetus for the New Orleans camera program.

New Orleans, and for that matter all states and localities, would be better off setting their own priorities for law-enforcement  rather than having their preferences massaged by federal agencies with money that is taken ultimately from local taxpayers.