Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter, YouTube
By Karen Fassuliotis
It's time to keep up the pressure for real changes to the traffic cameras in Greenwich.
Your voices are being heard!
First Selectman Fred Camillo just proved something important in his March 13 “Community Connections” newsletter: Greenwich voices are being heard.
Camillo wrote: “We continue to get calls at my office about the speed cameras… I do understand that a lot of residents are frustrated. Both my office and the GPD have heard from unhappy people about this.”
That admission matters. It shows that persistent, organized resident voices are breaking through the narrative that this program is unquestionable “public safety.” Camillo reiterated that “public safety will always be my top priority” and cited Sgt. J.D. Smith reporting reduced speeding in monitored zones. But he also outlined possible concrete steps in response to concerns: adding extra signage to clarify hours of operation, making the appeal process easier, and giving people more time. “There will be further information about this soon,” he wrote.
This isn’t about denying child safety; it’s about demanding smarter, more transparent solutions. And importantly, the outpouring of feedback—including a recent petition on change.org—a petition that has gathered over 945 signatures as of March 19, 2026 - is having an impact.
These concessions prove the value of civic engagement. The Board of Selectmen—acting as the town’s traffic authority—unanimously approved the cameras with limited upfront public input. Now, amid backlash, misinformation claims, scam texts, and growing frustration, officials are listening and planning adjustments.
But Listening Is Not Fixing The Problem
Camillo is right. Drivers need to slow down in school zones and elsewhere in town. Public safety should be everyone's top concern. But the broader traffic data simply do not support his claim that automated cameras are the best or only solution.
Greenwich's own Safe Streets study and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration statistics show that most pedestrian crashes and severe injury near schools involve distracted driving, impaired drivers, poor road design, missing sidewalks, inadequate crossings and low-light conditions far more than pure speeding. Speeding is a factor in roughly 29% of all fatal crashes nationwide - it is not the dominant cause in school-zone pedestrian accidents. And how many have occurred in Greenwich school-zones? No one seems to have an answer.
It's time to fix the problem!
Greenwich’s Rushed Process - A Recap
To understand why so many feel uneasy, consider how this program rolled out. In May 2024, the Board of Selectmen unanimously approved the proposal for school-zone cameras after only a few low-turnout meetings with minimal public comment—no formal hearing, no broad community discussion, and no neighborhood input on locations. Bypassing the Board of Estimate and Taxation and Representative Town Meeting, the process accelerated: state DOT approval arrived by July 2025, warnings began in fall 2025, and full ticketing started in November 2025.
The town partnered with Blue Line Solutions, a private Tennessee vendor, which installed and operates the cameras at no upfront cost, conducted initial speed studies (showing ~20% of drivers exceeding limits by 10+ mph), selected locations, and performs initial violation reviews before Greenwich police approval. The vendor earns fixed fees per citation (~$18–$22 plus a $15 online convenience fee), while the town retains ~$28–$32. Fines are $50 for first offenses and $75 for repeats.
In January 2026 alone, over 7,225 tickets were issued (with 9,500+ more under review), generating hundreds of thousands in revenue. Persistent high ticket volumes months after rollout—despite claims of reduced speeding at some sites—raise concerns that the system prioritizes steady revenue over fully resolving safety issues. And accident data for the sites chosen don't seem to be available to support an ongoing safety issue.
Which makes you wonder whether the locations were picked more for high speeding counts rather than for the worst accident history.
Is this really about safety or what some call “revenue engineering”?
Who's Controlling the Appeals Process? It's the Out-of-State Vendor!
A real-life example shows that neither the Greenwich Police Department nor the Town has direct input into contesting tickets.
A resident retrieved an automated speed camera citation from their mailbox and, on the same day, promptly submitted a formal hearing request. The out-of-state vendor (Blue Line Solutions) denied it, replying:
"you have 10 days to request an administrative hearing, and your citation(s) is past due. We cannot schedule you for this citation at this point."
They added:
"Greenwich only allows 10 days to contest" and claimed the citation was already more than 10 days old.
The resident explained why this is unreasonable for mailed citations from Tennessee:
"a 10-day window [is not] a reasonable timeframe to contest a citation mailed from Tennessee to Connecticut—even if it were sent on the same day the citation was issued (under normal USPS conditions, delivery would take approximately 3–5 business days, placing receipt well into that 10-day period)."
The resident requested further information about the ticket from the vendor and reiterated the hearing request. No hearing has yet been granted, and the matter remains unresolved.
This case highlights how the rigid 10-day contest window—without adjustment for cross-country mailing delays—can effectively block residents from contesting tickets, even when they act immediately upon receipt.
It fuels broader concerns about the program's rushed rollout and inflexible appeals process, reinforcing the need for reforms: longer contest periods, better mailing transparency, or simpler local appeal procedures.
Amplified Privacy and Data Control Concerns
Beyond revenue and effectiveness, the biggest red flag for many is privacy and who controls the data. These cameras automatically capture your license plate — and in some automated enforcement setups, potentially front/rear photos or video that could include drivers or passengers — without your consent or even your knowledge until a ticket arrives. All these data flow first to Blue Line Solutions (an out-of-state private company), which performs the initial review before passing it to Greenwich Police for final approval. Connecticut law limits speed/red-light camera data to violation enforcement only (no general surveillance use, with short retention periods like 30 days in similar systems).
But transparency is lacking: We have no clear, public details on exactly how long Blue Line retains images/data, what security measures prevent breaches, whether any data are shared with third parties (e.g., for analytics or backups), or how residents can access/delete their own captured info. The ACLU of Connecticut has raised statewide alarms about "pervasive surveillance" from automated systems, warning that even tightly regulated tools enable broader misuse risks — like data leaks, unauthorized access, or future expansions beyond traffic tickets.
In a town like Greenwich that values personal rights and limited government overreach, outsourcing constant monitoring of our streets to a profit-motivated vendor raises legitimate questions: Who truly controls these data? What happens if policies change or the contract ends? These aren't fringe worries — they're echoed in resident petitions, local commentary, and broader CT debates on surveillance tech. Safer roads shouldn't come at the cost of turning drivers into unwitting subjects of ongoing private data collection.
And This System Leads to Potential Scams
The introduction of automated cameras has already sparked real-world scams, just as it did in other Connecticut towns. In Middletown, after speed cameras went live in 2025, police issued urgent warnings about a surge in fraudulent text messages pretending to be from the Connecticut DMV claiming "outstanding traffic tickets" and demanding immediate payment via links (which could steal personal info or install malware). Middletown PD stressed: no municipality or state agency will ever text or email for payment—legitimate tickets come by mail only, payable online via the official site on the citation.
Here in Greenwich, we're seeing the same pattern: residents have reported receiving suspicious texts about unpaid violations, and Selectwoman Rachel Khanna noted at a recent meeting that a constituent got one—confirmed as a scam by Chief Heavey. Greenwich Police recently posted warnings that they (and the DMV) will never request payment via text, phone, or email for fines. Scammers exploit the confusion around new camera programs—people worry about tickets they might have missed and click risky links. This adds another layer of unintended harm: automated enforcement creates opportunities for fraud that traditional policing doesn't.
Continue to E-Mail the Board of Selectmen
Camillo also asked us to keep complaints civil — and he is correct. Profanity, threats, or rude rants will be ignored and not recorded. That is fair. Polite, fact-based emails and calls are what get results, as we just saw with the proposed new signage and easier appeals.
Keep the pressure on — politely and persistently.
Please take two minutes today to email (click on their names for the email address):
A short, respectful note is enough:
“Thank you for acknowledging resident frustration with the school-zone speed cameras. While slowing down is important, the data show other factors cause most incidents. Please pause new citations, remove the cameras, and invest in proven alternatives like police patrols, speed humps, and better crossings — without the privacy risks of automated data collection by a private vendor or the added scam vulnerabilities.”
Every additional respectful message strengthens the case and shows the Board of Selectmen that this is not a fringe issue — it is a town-wide concern.
If you believe automated cameras are not the right long-term solution, one more easy step is to add your name to the Change.org petition that is circulating online (it already has hundreds of signatures in just one week). It is another tool that helps amplify the message.
Our tradition in Greenwich has always been open, thoughtful debate. Let’s honor that by showing our elected officials that civil voices, raised together, can still steer policy in the right direction.
Stay updated with the latest in the Constitution State with The CT Centinal
