‘Equity’ Cameras Go Live in California – If You’re Not Low Income, Prepare to Pay

Go to your local grocery store.  If you want to buy bread or fruit you will need to show your income tax returns.  If you have a high income—you pay more.  If you have low income, you pay less.  Imagine the yells and screams from that!

“The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency revealed on its website that the fees, as mandated by state legislation, differ quite a bit based on poverty level.

For example, drivers caught going between 11 and 15 miles per hour over the speed limit will ordinarily receive $50 fees, but if they are “low-income,” they will pay $25, and if they are on “public assistance,” the fee will drop to $10.

That pattern extends into much higher fines.

The normal fee for driving between 16 and 25 miles per hour too fast is $100 for most people, but it is $50 for “low-income” and $20 for “public assistance.”

How about being a bank robber?  If you have a high income you get ten years in prison.  If you are poor, you get five years.

What are they smoking or taking in San Fran?  These people are either crazy or high on drugs.

‘Equity’ Cameras Go Live in California – If You’re Not Low Income, Prepare to Pay

Ben Zeisloft, The Western Journal. The Gateway Pundit, 4/6/25   https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/04/equity-cameras-go-live-california-not-low-income/

San Francisco launched a controversial new traffic camera program through which residents with low incomes or receiving government assistance will receive substantial discounts in fines.

City authorities turned on 33 new cameras last month, according to KABC-TV in Los Angeles, yet they will not give out citations for the first two months of the program. Instead, drivers will receive warnings during that time.

Once citations do start, however, the income level of the driver will determine how much he or she will pay.

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency revealed on its website that the fees, as mandated by state legislation, differ quite a bit based on poverty level.

For example, drivers caught going between 11 and 15 miles per hour over the speed limit will ordinarily receive $50 fees, but if they are “low-income,” they will pay $25, and if they are on “public assistance,” the fee will drop to $10.

That pattern extends into much higher fines.

The normal fee for driving between 16 and 25 miles per hour too fast is $100 for most people, but it is $50 for “low-income” and $20 for “public assistance.”

The rate for anyone going 26 miles per hour or more over the speed limit increases to $200, but it drops to $100 and $40 respectively for less privileged drivers.

Anyone going more than 100 miles per hour can expect to be fined a whopping $500, unless they happen to be “low-income” or are on “public assistance,” after which the fees once more fall to $250 and $100 respectively.

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency even has another webpage showing residents how they can “access low-income transit fares and fee waivers.”

“SFMTA offers a number of discounts on transit fares and parking related fees for low income customers with a gross annual income,” the agency emphasized.

The rates benefit those below 200 percent of the federal poverty level.

Some critics of the program asserted that charging different fines based on income for the same offense is inherently unjust.

An opinion piece in the Staten Island Advance warned that traffic cameras have already proven unpopular in New York City, predicting that the initiative would be similarly hated in San Francisco, especially given the purported equity angle.

“If you’re caught driving too fast, you have to pay a penalty because you’ve made the roads less safe for your fellow humans,” the article noted. “The fine is supposed to sting a little bit. It’s supposed to discourage you from driving too fast in the future. Otherwise, why bother?”

“But how does that square with letting some people largely off the hook for their offenses?

“It doesn’t. In fact, it might encourage some people to keep speeding,” the article added. “And it shows that only some of us, people of means, are responsible for safer roads.”

“As if people with middle class incomes don’t already pay their fair share, and more, to the government in the form of an entire constellation of taxes and fees,” the outlet observed.