Reviving traffic cameras would face significant hurdles, including state laws that create financial disincentives and the need for voters to OK cameras at the ballot box. But key city leaders and safety advocates see a renewed, safety-focused push as a necessary step. The idea is even included in Mayor Justin Bibb’s “Vision Zero” plan, a serious of recommendations to improve driver and pedestrian safety in Cleveland released in 2022.
These are the 5 takeaways from the original article that ran Oct. 6.
1. Renewed interest driven by public safety complaints
Council representatives say they are reviving the discussion about traffic cameras primarily in response to persistent resident complaints about reckless driving and speeding. Council President Blaine Griffin and other members like Councilman Mike Polensek have stated that traffic enforcement is a top concern they hear from constituents. Supporters, including advocacy groups like Bike Cleveland, point to federal studies showing cameras can significantly reduce crashes and injuries. They argue the focus has shifted from a “cash grab” to a legitimate safety measure.
2. Decisive voter ban and past backlash create a major hurdle
The city cannot simply reinstall cameras; it must first overcome a decisive 2014 voter-approved charter amendment that banned their use.
Cleveland voters rejected the cameras by a three-to-one margin, requiring that a law enforcement officer be present to personally issue a ticket for any violation caught on camera. The public backlash stemmed from the perception that the program was a revenue scheme violating due process, especially since most of the $100-per-ticket fine went to an out-of-state company. To bring cameras back, the city council would need to convince the same electorate that a new, more balanced program is necessary.
3. State law creates significant financial disincentives
Even if voters approve a charter change, Ohio state law imposes major financial penalties on cities using automated traffic cameras.
For every dollar a municipality collects in camera fines, the state reduces its payment from the Local Government Fund by the same amount. Furthermore, state law mandates that all camera-generated tickets must be filed in municipal court, and the city must pay the court costs upfront, which cannot be passed on to the violator. These rules make it more difficult for a traffic camera program to be profitable, as revenue from fines must exceed the loss of state funding and administrative costs.
4. School zones offer a viable path forward
A key exception in Ohio’s anti-camera legislation provides a strategic opening for Cleveland — cameras in school zones.
Automated cameras placed in designated school zones are exempt from the state’s financial penalties. This means the city would not lose state tax dollars for fines collected in these areas, nor would it have to pay the associated court costs. An in-house counsel for local governments described school zones as the “sweetest of the sweet spots” for implementing traffic cameras under the current legal climate.
Still, Cleveland would need to go to voters before placing cameras in school zones. Mayor Justin Bibb’s “Vision Zero” plan specifically calls for using speed cameras in school zones, as well as in areas with crashes that led to serious injuries.
5. Legality has shifted, but a “reasonable” approach is key
A state law requiring a police officer to be present at camera sites is null, after Ohio Supreme Court ruled in 2017 that the rule was unconstitutional. This legal shift has allowed some suburbs like Parma Heights and Newburgh Heights to reactivate their cameras.
Former city law director Subodh Chandra, who was in office during the first camera rollout, cautioned that any new program must be “more reasonable.” This includes placing cameras only where justified, assessing speed limits to ensure they are appropriate, and avoiding ticketing drivers for minor infractions just a few miles over the limit.
©2025 Advance Local Media LLC., Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
