San Francisco recently became the first city in California to install speed cameras as part of a broader program aimed at reducing speeding, improving traffic safety, and preventing traffic-related fatalities.
While the initiative had the makings of an inoffensive program purposed around making high-injury thoroughfares and school zones safer, the state Democrats behind it apparently permitted their ideology to corrupt the novel Speed Safety System Pilot Program, transforming it into a three-tier equity-attuned penalty system.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) ratified legislation in 2023 authorizing San Francisco and a handful of other cities in the state to establish a Speed Safety System Pilot Program.
Under the program, clearly identified speed cameras can be positioned on streets approved for enforcement. These cameras, which must be placed at least 500 feet after signs stating both the speed limit and "Photo Enforced," take photos of the rear license plates of vehicles traveling 11 miles per hour or more over the posted speed limit. The vehicle's registered owner subsequently receives a citation.
'A designated jurisdiction shall reduce the applicable fines and penalties by 80 percent for indigent persons.'
SF Gate reported that the cameras, operated by the Arizona-based transportation company Verra Mobility, will not use facial recognition.
According to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, 33 cameras have been installed across the city.
Well over half of the cameras are not currently operational. Those actively snapping pictures are more or less warming the public up to the idea of their presence as the law justifying it requires that participating cities issue warning notices rather than notices of violations for speeding offenses detected within the first 60 days of the program.
Real fines will be issued for violations after this grace period with the exception to individuals subject to criminal penalties for the same act. Violations recorded by the cameras will result only in contestable civil penalties and, according to the legislation, "shall not result in the [Department of Motor Vehicles] suspending or revoking the privilege of a violator to drive a motor vehicle or in a violation point being assessed against the violator."
The Democratic legislation that produced this speed-trap scheme states that "a designated jurisdiction shall reduce the applicable fines and penalties by 80 percent for indigent persons, and by 50 percent for individuals up to 250 percent above the federal poverty level."
Accordingly, a driver caught traveling in a vehicle going 26 miles per hour over the posted speed limit must pay $200, unless of course they qualify for the "low-income fee," in which case they must pay only $100. Those on public assistance traveling at over 100 mph would be hit up for only $40.
For San Franciscans 251% above the federal poverty level or higher, the fines can reach $500.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Cyril Ramaphosa, South Africa's socialist president, ratified legislation on Jan. 25 enabling the government to seize land without compensation. With white farmers still possessing a great deal of land, the ruling coalition apparently figures the new law for a means of redistributing property to members of a state-preferred racial group.
Citing the Expropriation Act of 2024 as cause, President Donald Trump noted on Truth Social Sunday that he "will be cutting off all future funding to South Africa until a full investigation of this situation has been completed!"
Last year, the U.S. reportedly committed to over $323 million in foreign assistance to South Africa. The U.S. Agency for International Development, which Trump appears poised to shutter, directed the bulk of the funding. In 2023, America poured over $439 million into funding for the African nation.
"South Africa is confiscating land, and treating certain classes of people VERY BADLY," wrote Trump. "It is a bad situation that the Radical Left Media doesn't want to so much as mention. A massive Human Rights VIOLATION, at a minimum, is happening for all to see. The United States won’t stand for it, we will act."
Under the controversial law, which abrogates the Expropriation Act of 1975, the state can seize land in the name of the "public interest," which is defined to include "the nation's commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa's natural resources in order to redress the results of past racial discriminatory laws or practices," or in the name of "public purpose," which is a flexible term effectively meaning any purpose the state could suggest is "for the benefit of the public."
Although the state could compensate an owner for expropriated property under the law, the state is permitted to pay "nil" if it determines doing so is "just and equitable." When stealing property from landowners, the state must indicate that it has attempted without success to reach an agreement for the acquisition of the property on terms it deems "reasonable."
'Why do you have openly racist ownership laws?'
From the time landowners are informed their property is being stolen to the time they lose possession, they "must take all reasonable steps to maintain the property." Failing to do so, the landowner set to lose their property could also end up on the hook for the perceived amount of the loss in value.
Zsa-Zsa Boggenpoel, a professor at South Africa's Stellenbosch University, recently hinted that the law will be a tool wielded in a racist manner, stating:
In South Africa's colonial and apartheid past, land distribution was grossly unequal on the basis of race. The country is still suffering the effects of this. So expropriation of property is a potential tool to reduce land inequality. This has become a matter of increasing urgency. South Africans have expressed impatience with the slow pace of land reform.
While South Africa's Marxist-Leninist political party, the Economic Freedom Fighters — whose leader and members routinely chant about murdering white farmers — suggested the law does not go far enough to redistribute land from white farmers to black citizens, other political parties said an earlier draft of the legislation was unconstitutional, reported Bloomberg.
Ramaphosa noted in a statement early Monday, "The recently adopted Expropriation Act is not a confiscation instrument, but a constitutionally mandated legal process that ensures public access to land in an equitable and just manner as guided by the constitution."
Responding to Trump's threat, the socialist added, "The US remains a key strategic political and trade partner for South Africa. With the exception of PEPFAR Aid, which constitutes 17% of South Africa's HIVAids programme, there is no other funding that is received by South Africa from the United States."
Elon Musk, who was born and raised in South Africa, subsequently asked Ramaphosa, "Why do you have openly racist ownership laws?"
The Free Market Foundation, a libertarian think tank based in Johannesburg, is among the groups critical of the law. Martin van Staden, head of policy at the think tank, noted Monday, "The patriotic thing for South Africans to do is to oppose the government's attempts to implement expropriation without compensation, not to get upset when foreign actors point it out."
"Concealing the absence of compensation in appeals to 'nil' compensation does not cure the Expropriation Act of its confiscatory nature or unconstitutionality," added van Staden.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The American people just voted to end racial discrimination under the guise of 'equity,' yet the health care clerisy continues to act as if nothing changed on Nov. 5.
Though the trans- and DEI-focused amendments failed to pass, they demonstrated that the Trump administration intends to fight on all fronts.
'You live by the executive order, you die by the executive order,” said Dan Lennington, deputy counsel at WILL.
Ending mandatory DEI indoctrination in the classroom will require deliberate action by state legislatures and university boards.
How are federal workers to interpret their bosses' capricious ditching of DEI, which based on former guidance would be a gross violation of human rights?
www.theblaze.com