An Oct. 2 Associated Press article reported how one of Ohio’s “poorest” cities, East Cleveland, was dealt “another financial blow” when a federal judge “stuck” it with a $638,000 judgment in favor of a company that supplied it with traffic cameras. The city had hoped these cameras “would provide a revenue boost.”



One might wonder two things: How does East Cleveland feel about being on the receiving end of “stuck” relating to traffic cameras? Did the city not get the statewide memo that these devices were not revenue boosters?



Shame, shame on that nasty federal judge who denied this struggling Ohio city the opportunity it needed to become safer ... uh, I mean richer ... oh, I mean, well, whatever the supporters of these devices claim the “benefits” are.



The incredible idea that these cameras are for safer streets has been dealt “another blow” by this now widely known but timely admission.



In a related column Oct. 3, Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker said it best: “Once we accept the necessity of cameras to keep the citizenry in line, especially when keeping order is so profitable, we needn’t let our imaginations wander far to see that absolute order is the endgame in a brave new world.”



What will cities and counties think of next — a 100 percent penalty for getting your dog license a day late? Or maybe a camera in each home to prevent a whole range of problems.



With the fines from 745,875 camera-generated tickets paid in 2013, think how many police could be hired.



To our friends in the general public: Do not speed.



To our friends in government: Send your camera money to the poorest Ohio cities.



To our friends in the Ohio Supreme Court: Loosen the noose that (to paraphrase Parker) we, the people, enrich our elected officials to torment us with.



DAVID LARGE, PARIS TOWNSHIP