But how much do we spend now on traffic safety around school zones? Because if we have $5 million dedicated to that, then the current spending is freed up for other uses.

Whatever. People too dumb to figure out that all they have to do to avoid fines is to stop speeding are probably not smart enough to figure out that money is money.

One of the few places I agree with former governor Dan Evans: Segregated funds are stoopid, stoopid, stoopid, and so are the politicians who create them.

So instead of meeting real city needs, they'll spend the money on consultants and informational signs about why running over kids in your car is a bad idea, and maybe a website, and then they can fill the neighborhood with a million unneeded barriers and maybe a helicopter hovering overhead and stuff so the kids feel like they're going to school off the Shankill Road in Belfast during the worst of the Troubles.

It's OK to have a bias toward fixing school zone problems...children are the future and all that. But that bias (assuming we agree there should be one) should occur throughout the budget, not just with this piece of it. And obviously if there is ample spend there already, we should move the money around.

Stupid policy that will just waste valuable funds which could be put to better use.

I think we should increase the speed limit in school zones. Clearly the drivers don't agree with the posted maximum.

Sadly, Fnarf is right @3.

The solution is drones. With lasers.

You know how to make school zones safer? Reduce car traffic. Put this money into lightrail.

To note, the City used to pay for crossing guards for many Seattle public schools. They stopped that several years back. The district only pays for a few and many PTAs have picked up on paying. It would be great if some of that $5M went towards crossing guards.

Oh, hey, and remember that drunk who ran down a family was supposed to used an ignition interlock? But there was no money to pay to enforce that. So maybe send some money that way?

@9: Nice troll. "Let's ticket people endangering themselves instead of those endangering others, better for public safety!"

How about instead of these cameras, just put in some nasty speed bumps? Lots and lots of them. That will slow traffic 24/7. No more worrying about if the rug rats are in school or not. Oh, wait. That doesn't make any money it only increases safety far more than a stupid camera. Too logical.

If I see one of these cameras I'm going to fucking destroy it.

People complaining about speed cameras mostly remind me of an asshat I met who was bragging about beating a DUI, and told me all his friends had them too.

I say spend the money on traffic safety throughout the city.

@14, big talk from an internet tough guy!

This argument comes up again and again.

If someone decides to add a specific fee or penalty as a nuisance tax, then someone else will want that penalty linked to the supposed nuisance itself. Thus, you have not done the real work of making the case for the tax as a general societal necessity in the first place.

That is why I state that the best and longest lasting solution is to return to property tax as a way to fund the most basic government services as the only reason for its existence is as a funding mechanism, not as a penalty.