Slashdot Mirror
Arizona Considers Selling Capitol Buildings
Things are so bad in Arizona that legislators are considering selling the House and Senate buildings where they've met and worked for more than 50 years. Dozens of other state properties may also be sold. The plan is to sell the properties and then lease them back over several years before assuming ownership again. "We've mortgaged the legislative halls," said an exasperated state Rep. Steve Yarbrough, a Chandler Republican. "That just tells you how extraordinary the times are. To me, it's something we're going to have to do no matter how much we find it undesirable." I bet they could get a great price on the Grand Canyon.
Low taxes can have high costs.
Arizona's actual long-term plan is to sell all of their Capitol buildings and replace them with Lowercase buildings and pocketing the difference in caost.
What the HELL IS IT doing here ?
Is this like monopoly? I tend to lose not long after I have to start mortgaging my properties to the bank.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I've consistently said the same thing: Don't cut taxes, cut spending. Just as consistently, my thoughts have been shot down.
Well here's the final result of irresponsible fiscal policies. Congrats, the government now belongs to the bank.
With some prudence during the boom times, maybe we wouldn't be seeing so many issues during the bust? I know it's hard to imagine, but some governments paid down debt during the boom, rather than cutting taxes to unsustainable levels, only to be laughed at. Who's laughing now?
It's been a long time.
...in yesterday's post on Mike Shedlock's blog. He makes a telling point: "Bear in mind, you can only sell the Capital Building once. Then what? Is anyone looking ahead?"
The Army reading list
"Aah! I see you have the machine that goes 'ping'. This is my favourite. You see, we lease this back from the company we sold it to, and that way, it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account."
I can see it now: "Microsoft Hall of Justice"
:)
This is not a signature.
A bank needs a bailout from the government.
The government needs money to pay them.
The government mortgages their property to get money from a bank.
The government gives the money to the bank.
Who wins?
This is the worst I've heard of yet. How about they try to fix the problem instead of a temporary fix? That and I don't see how this is actually going to save any money. They'll incur the cost of moving everything to a new location, rents at the new location...etc etc etc.
If you already can buy the politicians who work there, what could be the problem of being able to buy the building itself?
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
On a per capita basis, Arizona is worse off than California. The cause is due to a confluence of factors, including not saving enough for the bad times, taxes being too low or spending being too high, having such a growth oriented economy, etc.
But there are two items which I am CONVINCED are major factors as well.
1) Term limits: They suck. I used to support them, but I was wrong. Term limits result in a legislature that doesn't know WTF it's doing at any time. There is no institutional memory, and once someone understands the complex process of creating and passing legislation - they get the boot. Additionally, because no one exactly knows their jobs, term limits result in a weak branch of government, so the executive tends to dominate. This is not what our respective state constitutions intended. I wish people would put two and two together on this.
2) Illegal alien "crackdown" and employer sanctions: AZ is suffering a major real estate crisis. The crisis is for reasons obvious to anyone, but a contributing factor for our crappy economy and crappy real estate was the crack down on illegal aliens. Folks don't realize that these people rent and spend here too (often times without the societal expense us "real people" tend to cause society). When you have sweeps, a lack of employment and a general sense of animosity towards those who (in my view) are major contributors to society, they move one state over (they're not moving back to Mexico). I wish people would understand this point too.
Certainly, the overall economic factors play a very large role, but AZ has gotten itself in a big mess all by itself...
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
So what if I buy one of these properties then break the tenants lease (pay a financial penalty or something) then I'd outright own the property? Would the building be zoned commercial or could I make one of these buildings into my house? or bed & breakfast? (which would great if I bought a jail)
Just thinking outside the box here...
Tax and spend liberals (both R and D) has even higher costs.
Here's a novel concept .... LIMIT GOVERNMENT SPENDING.
Lets start cutting all the crap out of budgets, removing social programs that don't work, and get back to basics. How about stop stupid feel good programs that do nothing but create stupid rules that cost nothing but money on things that don't work.
Yeah, times are tough. TOUGH SHIT. We can't afford all the pretty shiny programs when life was easier. Time is now to TIGHTEN our belts and get rid of cruft.
Yeah, some people might get hurt in the process, but if we continue going like we currently are, we are hurting future generations. People are already getting hurt, we shouldn't be passing that crap on to our children.
I know, bleeding heart liberals will go ape shit over this, but I don't freakin care. Because they are selfish twits who are only thinking about the here and now, and don't give a shit about the future generations.
Selling buildings and leasing them back is NOT productive in the long run, and is VERY short sighted. It is sacrificing the future instead of dealing with the core problems NOW.
CUT SPENDING, don't increase future spending to pay for today's spending.
What I would like is a automatic revocation of politicians who can't pass a balanced budget on time. You can't do that, you're fired and can never run for any office anywhere ever again. Throw them all out!
Maybe then we'll get someone besides a career politician into office who can do what is needed, even when unpopular.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Since the Grand Canyon (the proper part near the middle) is a federal park and thus federal land (with the exception of the reservations in the area), I doubt the state would be able to sell any. Although they might be able to fetch a decent price on some of the land outside of the park. If anything, their smaller state parks in the center of the state might be worth looking into. But in all seriousness, it seems as if they are trying to use this as an excuse to move out of the old building. From what I've read about the building, it is costing Arizona hundreds of thousands of dollars just to pay for the repairs and retrofits to the old building.
You don't live in Arizona do you? They've already cut everything they can.
I doubt this. Have a look at Wikipedia
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Arizona_state_budget
In 2009 the State Budget is $55 billion dollars. In 2000, the State Budget was less than half of that. Did our wages double from 2000 to 2009? If not, then why the hell did spending? Every state that is in red ink could easily avert its fiscal crisis if all it did was revert to a 2004 budget... We're not even talking 4 years ago...
There's constitutional restrictions on what they can touch (direct voter mandates cannot be cut)
This is an excuse. There is just a lack of political will to really make hard choices.
Change the State Constitution.
This is my sig.
Too bad it didnt get better after I left Arizona 10 years ago. Now the repug-led legislature is trying to privatize the buildings and funnel yet more money into the pockets of the people who elected them. This is the same idiotic type of idea as making all the interstate into Toll roads.
The State of Arizona's budget for 2009 is $55 billion dollars. The shortfall is about a couple of billion. If all the state did was to adopt the budget from 2006, which was 42.7 billion dollars, me thinks the state would be in the black and by a pretty penny.
This is my sig.
There's a difference between patriotism and theft.
Look at the budget for the State of Arizona...for 2000, it was 27 billion, for 2009, it is 55 billion...
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Arizona_state_budget
Gov't spending is up 8% annually. Where the hell is the money going? Why do you want to raise taxes to double their current levels when people's paychecks have not gone up. Cut services... the state spending is out of control.
This is my sig.
At least State governments are restricted in how much damage they can do in being unable to run long-term deficits. Mischievous government should be forced into foreclosure just as the imprudent individual. It will be a great day when the Capitol and White House are on the auction block in a desperate attempt to prevent the Federal Government from entering default.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Im confused here... If they sell the buildings then lease them from the new owners do they not have to pay rent? Then in a few years when the economy is better wont they have to buy it back for more then they sold it for? Real estate generally increases in value not decreases. It would make the whole deal a loss for the state then wouldnt it? I see no way that this would help out with their yearly budget except for the year they sell it. After that its only going to be a net loss.
It seems to me this sounds like a bs accounting scheme. Kinda similiar how a few states say its cheaper to keep a murderer in prison for life then it is to execute him within a few years. Its looks great in the short term but in the long run it costs much more.
It just sounds really stupid to me. I can understand trying to get some money to make ends meet but this whole deal makes me scratch my head.
Do the buildings go "ping"?
/., go to 3:00 of this. Don't worry, you'll get there some day in a distant future.
If you're new on
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
The heights of stupidity people will go just to avoid raising taxes.
The economy is in poor shape now, but will probably get much, much worse in the coming years (see today's poorly performing 5 year treasury bond sales, an indicator that foreign banks and investors don't want to invest in us, even with a higher "tail" interest rates.). What makes our state legislators think that they will have more funds in a few years to buy these properties back?
It is in no one's interest that the US economy crash and burn, and that is why the oil rich countries, and China, Russia, etc. appear to be cooperating on "gently" moving the world to a "basket of currencies" rather than use the dollar as the main international exchange currency - they don't want us to crash and burn and take them with us. A slow and gradual process is the best that we can probably hope for.
How can the USA cooperate? For one thing, how about reducing federal, state, and local expenditures by 25% (OK, I just made up that amount, but it sounds about right).
Painful? You bet. Government workers will have salaries and benefits reduced, as will the general population. Deals with labor unions will be broken. Benefits form the ponzy scheme known as social security will be cut back.
Corruption needs to be nipped. As a starter, how about a tax on financial transactions that do not involve real goods and services: apply a 1% tax to hedge fund investment transactions, etc. Slow down the non-productive use of money.
Bush, Obama, and Congress have already proven themselves to be firmly in the pockets of corporations and their lobbyists - that will not change. Why should people who get to make the rules be fair with the rest of us?
The issue here is that they need to raise taxes to support their own weight but the conservative party in this state is too stupid to realize it and the other half have no spine to push for what is needed so you end up in a stalemate resulting in even more stupid decision making.
Population growth does not account for doubling the budget. This is inexcusable. There's no need for a state's budget to ever escalate past GDP growth. There's a natural limiter there. The fact of the matter, state governments are utterly corrupt, looting the treasury, and the people, and now they are crying for more taxes. It's theft, is what it is.
This is my sig.
They're selling their own office instead of cutting back on education, health care, road maintenance, the fire department, &c. I think it's better for lawmakers to inconvenience themselves instead of the public. It's even mildly noble.
Karma fed to this user will be promptly burnt. Be warned; be wary.
As a starter, how about a tax on financial transactions that do not involve real goods and services: apply a 1% tax to hedge fund investment transactions, etc. Slow down the non-productive use of money.
I'm sorry, but where do you think that money goes?
That's how corporations are able to raise capital to expand their businesses. By levying a tax on the transfer of money from one investment to another, all you're doing is incentivizing people to keep their money in less productive concerns. How is that supposed to help the economy?
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
In Denmark the former tax minister Peter Brixtofte was mayor in the Farum municipality (he's apparently infamous enough to get his own Wiki page in English).
He implemented a similar scheme in Denmark (now called "Farummodellen"). If we ignore the fact that this was and still is against the law in Denmark, Farum municipality has ended up with the worst economy in any municipality in the country, despite the fact that it used to be one of the richest and most prosperous ones.
To give you an idea of the state it left them in:
In Denmark we have several types of taxes, the municipalities set two types: Municipaly/council tax and property tax. All non-calculated numbers below taken from here
And compare these two for two fairly close and I think fairly comparable municipalities:
In 1995 it was 17.30 and 0.60 percent respectively for Farum (sell and lease back)
In 1995 it was 19.20 and 0.88 percent respectively for Lyngby Taarbæk
In 2005 it was 22.80 and 1.80 percent respectively for Farum (sell and lease back) (total increase of 5.94%)
In 2005 it was 19.90 and 0.83 percent respectively for Lyngby Taarbæk (total increase of 0.54%)
Taxes doesn't tell the whole story of course. So let's look at expenses for the two, calculated pr resident:
In 1995 it was (Euro)4,256 for 17,835 residents in Farum (sell and lease back)
In 1995 it was (Euro)4,526 for 49,578 residents in Lyngby Taarbæk
In 2005 it was (Euro)8,949 for 18,662 residents in Farum (sell and lease back)
In 2005 it was (Euro)7,572 for 51,611 residents in Lyngby Taarbæk
So, an increase in expenses of 110% and an increase of 4.6% of the population for the sell and lease back municipality
And, an increase in expenses of 67% and an increase of 4.1% of the population for the other one
Now, I'll be honest and say that economics is tricky, and it doesn't get easier when you factor in Brixtofte's convictions for corruption and criminal breach of trust and the still unresolved main case against him partly involving the sale and lease back issues, but all in all it really really didn't pan out in Farum, despite the municipality getting a huge (Euro)268M subsidy paid out over 15 years from the government.
Even without looking elsewhere, think of it like this:
Government owned: expenses = Maintenance_g
Privately owned: expenses = Maintenance_p + profit
The only way that (maintenance_p + profit) < (maintenance_g) is if maintenance_p << maintenance_g, in which case you'll either end up with a horribly maintained building, possibly unsuitable for people to work in, OR you're paying low level government employees way too much. Last I checked that the latter has never been the case. When's the last time you heard someone say "I'll get a nice cozy government job - it pays a lot better"?
First, it always is spending that is too high. Politicians make promise after promise because they are not truly responsible for the costs they impose on their constituents. I know some will say that is not true because we can vote them out, but we don't. Just like schools, its the other guy's politician that is bad; theirs is great. Yet while we have politicians clamor to hold corporate executives responsible for the slightest expenditure or such they allow no such hold on themselves. Throw in their truly golden retirement programs we only encourage them to laden on the promises so they can stay in office.
Just as the Federal government has lost its way so have the states. Both have moved to remove all responsibility for life's difficult decisions. They take our rights away because we ourselves have lost what our rights really are. People today are more concerned with their right to choose who the next American idol is, the right to choose their preferred cell provider, and the right to watch the channels on TV they want. Yet the turn a blind eye to rights that require self responsibility. However politicians are more than willing to step into this void and grant you rights that you already have but they do it with a twist. If you have noticed, most of these new rights come at the cost of someone else paying for it, doing the work.
As for illegals, please don't try to write off their burden on society. They consume the same if not more of the same government provided resources we all pay for yet the majority don't pay the same taxes we do. After all they aren't legal so how do we collect from them? Buying food at the local grocery and paying rent does not pay for the services our society provides. There are also many studies which show a large illegal population both committing crimes and incarcerated. You cannot have a great society if you guilt yourself consistently in to turning away from the hard decisions.
What I find amazing is that regardless of loss of income governments only resort to blackmailing the tax paying populace into paying more instead of cutting back on the frivolous or over staffed government agencies. Instead of cutting "lifestyle" agencies and such where do they hit us first? Education, police, and fire. This was well played out in Atlanta recently. Until the city folk caved and accepted higher taxes the city set about to close fire and police stations in sensitive areas - read areas where resistance to increased and undue taxation were most evident.
Yet people want to hand their right to choose their own health care to these people? Guess what, you will see endless expansion of it as well. Think its bad that Arizona is thinking of selling state property, wait till it becomes too expensive to afford your own because of the endless increases to the promises made possible by your work.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The state needs to spend in order to keep up with population growth. It doesn't matter what the GDP is doing, the people require a certain amount of money. The alternative is to live with a lower quality of life, but we chose to have a larger budget instead.
But it's not always easy being big - and getting bigger at a rapid clip - in the middle of a desert. The growth that Arizona - and greater Phoenix, in particular - are experiencing has placed a great strain on the use of public land, roadways, and precious natural resources - especially water.
We live in a desert man, where do you think we get our water from? Do you think it's cheap? What about the people coming across the border and using emergency services, law enforcement, power, water, etc? Where are their taxes? Why am I paying for them? Maybe if they were paying their share we would have a larger GDP and you wouldn't be complaining that spending is outpacing the GDP.
There are a *lot* of issues in this state which require a lot of money. If you don't want spending to outpace the GDP, then be prepared to accept a lower quality of life as the population continues to rise.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
This is my favourite. You see, we lease this back from the company we sold it to, and that way, it comes under the monthly current budget and NOT the capital account. [applause] Thank you. Thank you. We try to do our best. Well, do carry on.
http://www.geocities.com/pythoninsanity/Meaningoflife.html
This is just absolute bunk. Pretty soon he'll be telling you that you are a corporation owned by the ebil gubmint, that's why they print your name in ALL CAPS!!11eleventy!! Then he will try to sell you books showing you how you don't have to pay taxes because Abraham Lincoln ordered congress to convene at gunpoint and the US has been a military dictatorship since then. If you buy the books and try out the theories, you will go to jail.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
But just keep spouting the only idea you republicans have left...
And your idea is, what, just raise the rates on people. Face it, this is entirely a manufactured crisis. All you have are excuses... do you mean to tell me that Arizona is spending 27 billion a year more on roads in 2008 than it was in 2000? Come on, that's just not the case. It's 8 years of passing benefits and programs the state cannot afford.
This is my sig.
great wheeze, very popular in UK. Sell public building cheap to friend of politician, then lease back with public money. Friend gets cheap building, plus good income, friend takes politician out to lunch every now and then, for free. Friend then increases rent. Great transfer of wealth from public (tax payers) to private, rich happy friend, fat happy politician.
Oh, that's bullshit. The transaction tax will be low enough that occasional trades to shuffle money between investments won't be affected. The fees are aimed at front-running leeches who use algorithmic trading to skim the market hurt everyone else.
The transaction tax will be low enough that occasional trades to shuffle money between investments won't be affected. The fees are aimed at front-running leeches [nytimes.com] who use algorithmic trading to skim the market hurt everyone else.
So... You just want to eliminate liquidity from the market. You don't think that will hurt those "occasional trades to shuffle money between investments" far more than the tax itself?
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
It's the exchange's job to provide liquidity, not Goldman Sachs'.
It's the exchange's job to provide liquidity, not Goldman Sachs'.
What?
Who's going to be on the other side of all those trades, if not speculators? A transaction requires two people: a buyer and a seller. The exchange cannot fill the role of either.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
Who'd want to buy the house where the economy of Arizona died? I heard it was murdered.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
In the last 8 years, Arizona has had a Republican majority in their government. If they passed more spending and benefits than they could pay for, they have no-one to blame but themselves.
I live there, and I am astounded about how shortsighted and stupid the legislature is. If they keep decimating school spending, no companies will want to relocate here, and their tax base (and draw for producing citizens, not retiree's and snowbirds) will continue to shrink.
Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress
...is only going for a 50 year lease. Indiana sold the Indiana Toll Road (I-80) for 75 years to a foreign company, along with Illinois selling the Chicago Skyway, and Chicago also sold all of their parking meters for 75 years as well.
It's just goddamn ridiculous. In 2080 our kids' kids' kids are going to piss on our graves realizing how much we f'd them over with these kind of contracts.
I was in Prescot the end of May and sales tax was 10%.
Costco was selling a WD 2.5 inch HD passport 500mb drive for 99.99 after a $20.00 off coupon.
They taxed the sale before the coupon price so I paid $12 in sales tax.
There are lots of people out of work in Arizona and many people are working 2 jobs just to get by as costs vs wages are not in sink for many mid lower income people. Seeing all of the empty malls and boarded up business I dont think that local business is doing so hot either.
Raising taxes is the last thing Arizona needs right now.
Government needs to learn to do more with less, just like everyone else in my opinion.
As much as I hate tickets, I think they and all these other states with budget problems need to tell their cops to step it up a notch and give a lot more speeding tickets and such...
I know an ex-cop who claims there's no such thing as quotas...in these tough times, there need to be, and they need to be way, way up there...
In the last 8 years, Arizona has had a Republican majority in their government
The moral of the story is that the "moral majority" is just as bad at spending as the Democrats are.
If they keep decimating school spending, no companies will want to relocate here, and their tax base (and draw for producing citizens, not retiree's and snowbirds) will continue to shrink.
What amazes me the most about Arizona is that the state is sitting on top of some pretty good sized mineral deposits - gold, silver, copper... I would be hawking off mining rights. You have Resolution Copper held up in permitting, and I'd think taxes from that alone would help considerably.
This is my sig.
retireees are the worst at "demanding" their state payments. They worked for decades in OTHER states but want their benefits to come from their new home. I laugh my ass off because these are the same people that used to go to Florida for the lack of income and property tax... and expect "young vacationers" taking their families on holiday to pay enough hotel and sales tax to fund their benefits.
Retirees and company owners don't want to pay for schools.. they'll import people from other states for their companies... remember "propertyless" IP and financial companies are the new hotness which is why the North has lots of ways to capture tax revenue the Southern states are just starting to realize they're chumps.
Just imagine if the Federal Government did this and Madoff ended up owning the jail that he is living in!
I wonder how many well connected criminals are in the Arizona Jails and what loopholes their high price dlawyers can find in the leases!
The mind boggles ...
There is a huge flaw in the right wings beliefs concerning taxes. Failure to tax properly has driven the national economy to the breaking point. We are accumulating problems because the republicans failed to address them. Bridges and roads are an easy example. Ronald Reagan may have gotten support for his idiotic beliefs but while the taxes were held down bridges and roads decayed. Now we are forced to spend a lot more than if we had maintained bridges and roads in an orderly manner. Across the board for all kinds of issues the bill has come due. The dollar that was saved ten years ago now requires ten dollars in additional taxes to catch up with the neglected projects.
So population and inflationary costs would be in line with a 158% increase, but instead the budget increased 200%, give-or-take.
However, assuming that government is a service (something I don't assume, but most people do), the cost of providing that service should go *down* with respect to what they provide, and having a larger population should provide better economies of scale, making their services *cheaper* per person.
So the government is doing the opposite of what private services do. Getting more expensive with time rather then less, and getting more expensive the more its "customer base" grows.
"Increasing technology levels"? Technology improves efficiency and lowers cost, not the other way around. In addition, I don't think individuals' absolute wealth is really increasing any more. Any increases we should be seeing are offset by the geometrically increasing amounts of our wealth that are siphoned off by the government (especially at the federal level) to pay for wars and bank bailouts.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
This was done in Canada years ago.
It is basically a way one government can try and make it self look fiscally responsible. Emphasis on "look".
The buildings are basically assets. Sell 'em for 50 Million to some company that leases them back to you. Does it matter that rather than maintaince costs of 2 million a year have now turned into 4 million a year? No, because political parties are short sighted and are more interested in getting re-elected than doing anything worthwhile. By doing this this they can now add 46 Million to their budget, helping them "balance" the budget. Never mind in the long term you lose money or it is a one shot deal. From their perspective if you don't get re-elected it doesn't matter anyway, and if you do you can deal with it then with some other short sighted plan. Likely you just say its these tough economic times, or the cost of doing business, and raise taxes (or cut programs) to cover you losses.
They do it all the time in Ontario, Canada as well as the feds. The best part is the kick backs to political friends. (or making new friends by selling them something worth 100 million for 50 million, etc...). Ah politics, ain't it grand? What makes you want to cry is every single one will talk about accountability during election time, but no one ever is, with perhaps the exception of a scape goat or two.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/u_s_holds_going_out_of_business
Billy Brown rides on. Yolanda Green bypasses Gary White.
There is a huge flaw in the right wings beliefs concerning taxes. Failure to tax properly has driven the national economy to the breaking point.
Sort of.
The flaw in right wing beliefs is that tax cuts can be made while maintaining a bunch of social programs (at the state and federal levels) and massive overseas adventurism (at the federal level).
Cut the "defense" budget to something reasonable, which means pulling the troops out of bases in 130 foreign countries and realizing that the defense industry is a black hole for money, and tax cuts are quite sustainable. This will not happen without massive public pressure due to lobbying. Cutting social programs is even more onerous and less viable, because people have been raised to depend on them or at least to believe that they are good and necessary.
So yes, tax cuts without a parallel scaling back of the governments which they fund is indeed irresponsible and a failure of conservative leadership, but it's a mistake to take responsible tax cuts off the table.
Your brain is not a computer.
You simply show up at DMV with the trust documents filled out properly (there are many how to books for this) and a title transfer to the trust name. It can be any trust, LLC or Corporation BTW - just so it has a legal identity.
As for the picture on your driver license, I understand that most people have cousins who look amazingly like them. The key thing here that there is no mechanism to enforce these tickets outside the US so they just don't bother sending one.
People I know who have done this simply send in the form for "someone else was driving" (included in the ticket) and in a couple of weeks get back a letter telling them that the case was dismissed.
Yes the license plate covers could never work for long and are unlawful now anyway. I did lie the idea of covering the state name though - that had style!
Some sort of decal (flag?) on your windshield (roughly behind your rear view mirror) would be quite effective though - it would obscure your face without getting in the way of your sight line to the road. This works because the camera must be mounted at an angle to your car and the paralax allows you to obscure the camera without obscuring the road.
Check it out the next time you are waiting for a red light.
There are a lot of flaws in the system which are being carefully hidden.
I got interested in this subject when I had to give up driving due to severe cataracts and parked my car in my garage for six months. During that time I got two robo-cop ("photo radar") tickets even though my car was parked in a locked garage! The judge agreed that there was something wrong and dismissed them both (I had to show my eye doctors report and the schedule for the surgery.) The car and plate looked like mine (a Grey Camry - no surprise), but the driver did not look at all like me or anyone I know.
The biggest surprise came when I went to reactivate my license - they couldn't FIND the current license which was suspended due to blindness, only a very old one which had expired about 15 years ago! They happily renewed that one so I am OK to drive. However it leaves me wondering what happens the NEXT time the system writes me a ticket and finds that my license is suspended due to blindness!
The people that I have talked to in the court system tell me that the personal service is the only way that ANY of the tickets get paid - that is why it is as high as 10%! The trick of just ignoring the first letter is pretty well known now it seems.
It seems that there are a whole lot of tricks as well as many flaws in the system so this little game will likely go on for quite some time.