|
|
||
Bill would provide for gasoline for police cars Date published: 1/18/2009
BY CHELYEN DAVIS
RICHMOND-- Drivers who get a ticket could pay an extra fee to help subsidize gas expenses for local police under a bill from state Sen. Richard Stuart.Stuart's bill would add $10 to the fines charged to ticketed motorists, with the money going back to localities to help cover gas costs. A locality would have to pass an ordinance to levy the fee. Stuart said he submitted the bill because local police and sheriffs offices were hit hard by last year's high gas prices, along with budget cuts and increasing demands on their services. "The problem is, in a time like this, the sheriffs offices and some other offices as well are forced to do twice as much work with half as much money. Any time you're in a bad economy their job and responsibilities expand tremendously because you have more crime. They are very short, they're going to have more cuts," Stuart said. "We certainly anticipate that gas may rise again in the very near future. So this is just an effort to try to help them out." Stuart said that when a police officer writes a citation under a state law, most--95 percent--of the money goes to the state. When an officer cites a driver under a local ordinance, half of the money remains with the locality. But most citations are for state violations, he said. Stuart hasn't yet worked out some kinks in the bill--such as how to ensure that 100 percent of the money would be returned to localities, and how to keep it from having to go into a state fund first. He expects opposition. "It's fairly simple, [but] I'm sure it's going to be controversial," Stuart said. His bill has been sent to the Senate's Local Government Committee, where it has not yet been heard. That's far from the only controversial bill Stuart has. A Senate Courts of Justice subcommittee this week already killed a bill he had proposed to charge higher fees for filing civil lawsuits. Stuart said the fees charged for court filings are extremely low, and do not provide enough money to help cover costs of operating courts. It could also help cut down on frivolous suits, he said. "Our revenues are way down and this is a reasonable way to help generate money for the clerks and the judges, and they're not willing to do it," Stuart said. "The people who are in the court and using the system should be paying for it." Stuart was upset because his bill was killed after a parade of lobbyists argued that it would burden businesses, such as landlords filing suits to evict tenants. "I learned yesterday that good public policy has nothing to do with making laws in the state of Virginia. It is terribly frustrating," Stuart said. "It was all about special interest groups yesterday. It had nothing to do with public policy, it was all about special interests. Not what was good for the commonwealth, but what was good for six or seven special interests." Chelyen Davis: 804/782-9362
...You wouldn't have your panties in such a bunch. Their isn't 100% enforcement and discretion, i.e. common sense, plays a large role in what violations are brought to the attention of the courts, thankfully. I'm very relaxed. Now, if I may offer you a bit of advice, try being a little more realistic. Dreams are nice, but they're only part of the process. You can't sit around and always dream unrealistically. Get back in touch with the real world around you and your posts will make better sense to all.
Particularly bad. What I did say was that if there were 100% enforcement, you would have at least one ticketable offense each day you get behind the wheel. Doesn't make you an awful driver, it just makes you human. I'd just much rather see the enforcement focusing on preventing accidents rather than generating revenue. The two are differing agendas. PS if you want to see who should be targeted, check the mirror. You must be the poster child for roadrage, unless you only have that persona online. relax a bit
If you get a ticket, you have to pay a
fine. If you don't get a ticket, no fine.
Can't get more transparent than that
LarryG.
Im willing to bet that everyone here illegally drives in the left lane and doesnt use it for passing. Id also say a fair amount are guilty of running yellow lights. And still even more are going to have to research my statements to findout that indeed, these are traffic offenses in virginia.
Now, with a broad sweeping accusatory statement such as that, how do you possibly expect to garner any credibility on this topic. You don't know me or my driving habits. You can bet all you like, If my driving were as bad as you wager, would I not have to pay my share as well, as offered in my opinion? Yes, traffic enforcement should be focused on public safety, which I feel it is, but law abiding tax payers alone should not bear the brunt of enforcing the laws that targets morons who violate it. Pay it up!
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
