LA parking fines are down because you would be a moron to ever park your car there if you intend to come back and not have your windows smashed by the ever present homeless encampments.

That, and that they have credit card capable readers so not having enough quarters (which I suspect was the main reason for tickets in the past), does not occur any more. They should look at total parking fee collections - I suspect that is still increasing.

"#14 | Posted by LampLighter"

This reminds of my California city where they removed a red light camera at a major intersection because it was too effective in getting people to obey the law so revenue dropped. Basically, revenue generation was more important than the main purpose which was to ensure safety at the intersection. As I posted above, the success should be judged by how much revenue they are collecting on people obeying the law and paying their meters (due to fear of fines) vs. how much is collected on those not obeying. At the end of the day, the purpose of this program is to scare people into compliance and if fines went to zero, that should be considered a success, not a failure.

"Because "revenue generation" is how the operators of those companies sold their product to the city. To that company, yeah, revenue generation was the important aspect of the cameras. Marketing 101."

Any city officials or police that bring in a new technology like a red light camera without the intended purpose being public safety (should be increased public safety at a reduced enforcement cost), should be thrown in jail.

"So the attempted parallel of your current alias' comment seem to be flawed at a basic level.
#16 | Posted by LampLighter "

Actually, my analogy is 100% correct. LA makes money from parking enforcement in 2 ways:

1.) % and amount of people that actually pay - similar to decreasing the get aways for border enforcement
2.) fine collected on those that don't

The positive externalities of public safety increase and better traffic flow don't have a monetary value assigned.

Thus, looking simply at the result for #2 above to judge the cost/benefit is typical smooth-brained liberal logic.

"Where they seemed to have failed in the ongoing revenue gathered.
But, that's A Good Thing?
#18 | Posted by LampLighter"

Yes, it is a good thing. Taking them out so that they have more money to pay police officers is the bad thing. That is government 101 - grow the size regardless if it helps people or not because the intention of government is not 'governing' - it is enriching politicians and government employees and ensuring stable employment for them.

"This thread is about Los Angeles losing money due to the enforcement costs of parking fines.
#19 | Posted by LampLighter"

Which I would argue is not happening -------. They are only 'losing money' because you smooth-brained liberals only include half of the equation. My argument is consistent. Your argument, as usual, does not make any sense.

"No it's not.
#22 | Posted by oneironaut"

You can't fix stupid and lamplighter is exhibit A.

"So, your current alias seems to think that it is A Good Thing when a city government seems to operate in an area at a loss?
#25 | Posted by LampLighter"

If I run a police department in a major city and zero property crimes occur and thus, I cannot give fines to people committing the property crimes (as there are none) so I am running at a loss, am I doing a good job or not? Wrap your smooth-brain around that -------.

"I mean if a positive result in fines collected vs the cost of collecting those fines is your ultimate goal, why not maximize that criterion?"

I never said that should be the goal - I stated the exact opposite.

"My goal would be, however, to reduce the reason for collecting those fines.
And maybe Los Angeles has been successful in that aspect, and that is why the fines collected have been so small?
#29 | Posted by LampLighter"

Great, maybe if you learn reading comprehension skills, you could have read any one of my posts above where I made that exact point many times already. I am happy you finally made it to this place in thinking but I am not going to waste my time guiding you there ever again. You are just too damn dense.

"I mean if a positive result in fines collected vs the cost of collecting those fines is your ultimate goal, why not maximize that criterion?"

I never said that should be the goal - I stated the exact opposite.

"My goal would be, however, to reduce the reason for collecting those fines.
And maybe Los Angeles has been successful in that aspect, and that is why the fines collected have been so small?
#29 | Posted by LampLighter"

Great, maybe if you learn reading comprehension skills, you could have read any one of my posts above where I made that exact point many times already. I am happy you finally made it to this place in thinking but I am not going to waste my time guiding you there ever again. You are just too damn dense.