Is A Picture Still Worth A Thousand Words In San Francisco?
Liberals cannot discern the meaning of equity. Oh sure, they will rant and rave that conservatives are trying to rob every American of it, but they can’t define it. Not understanding the meaning of something that you swing like a war club is bad enough, but pretending that you do know and distorting the very concept of the word is worse.
Not unlike the terms “Woman and Women,” where the left fluctuates between denying their existence, unable to define what one is, and when convenient, claiming that they are discriminated against.
Equity, according to the left, is hiring minorities, women (this is one of those cases when they acknowledge they exist), queers, and transgenders over white males. They do this under the guise of equity and in the name of DEI. However, hiring for any reason other than merit and experience is injustice, not equity. Democrats WANT this injustice. They lie to the American people about equity and use their well-massaged lies to bludgeon truth into something that seems to be almost acceptable and palatable.
In San Francisco, they are trying again to pull the wool over America’s eyes for the sake of equity, and once again, the lie they are trying to spin is an injustice.
The city has decided to implement a controversial new traffic camera program that determines the amount of fines based on an individual’s financial and social status. San Francisco residents with low incomes or those receiving government assistance will receive significant discounts on penalties for breaking the same traffic laws.
Last month, city authorities activated 33 new cameras, as reported by KABC-TV in Los Angeles. However, they will not issue citations for the program’s first two months; instead, drivers will only receive warnings during this period.
However, once citations start, the driver’s income level will determine how much he or she will pay.
The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency has announced on its website that fees for traffic violations, as required by state legislation, vary significantly based on the driver’s income level.
For instance, drivers caught speeding between 11 and 15 miles per hour over the limit typically face a fee of $50. However, if a driver is classified as “low-income,” the fee is reduced to $25. Those who are on “public assistance” will pay only $10.
The speeding fine structure reflects a tiered approach based on income levels. For most drivers, the standard fine for exceeding the speed limit by 16 to 25 miles per hour is $100. However, this fee is reduced to $50 for individuals classified as “low-income” and $20 for those receiving “public assistance.”
The fine increases to $200 for drivers who exceed the speed limit by 26 miles per hour or more. Again, lower-income individuals have reduced rates: $100 for “low-income” drivers and $40 for those on “public assistance.”
Anyone driving over 100 miles per hour can expect to be fined $500, unless they are considered “low-income” or receive “public assistance,” in which case the fines are reduced to $250 and $100, respectively.
The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency has even created a webpage that explains how residents can access low-income transit fares and fee waivers.
the agency claims:
“SFMTA offers a number of discounts on transit fares and parking-related fees for low-income customers with a low gross annual income.”
The rates supposedly benefit those below 200 percent of the federal poverty level.
Just as hiring people because of their skin color, sexual preference, or gender rather than their ability to do the job is immoral and unconstitutional, minimizing the penalty for people who commit precisely the same crime is equally unjust and ridiculously moronic.
Nothing good will come from this impishly pathetic idea. When will the left learn that laws cannot be based on their immature ideals? These cameras will do nothing except create division and hatred, while encouraging lousy behavior from those who receive reduced penalties. They will feel empowered and privileged rather than seeing the fines as a detriment.
An article in the Staten Island Advance warned that traffic cameras have already proven unpopular in New York City and predicted that the initiative would also be disliked in San Francisco, especially considering the alleged 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 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 remarked.”
They say a picture is worth a thousand words; apparently, the photographs taken by the cameras in San Francisco make even that subjective. The bottom line needs to be, “If you do the crime, you have to pay the fine,” and that must apply to everyone.
