Lordy, that was written by a politician. To me, transit equity means there is a fare to be paid - you pay the fare you get to use it. Things like reduced fare for youth, poverty, etc. are policy issues, not enforcement/compliance.
If they want a sliding scale of fines based on past history, they will have to maintain a database of personal information. Some will not be pleased.
It was indeed written by a politician, LOL.
But I think there are some valid ideas here, and some others that could be explored.
1) I've had the experience on one occasion of getting a 'caution' for a traffic offense.
It was a rolling stop.
It was in my area, I did know there was a stop sign, I honestly think I stopped long enough, but the officer in the cruiser that pulled up behind me disagreed.
I spoke nicely to the officer, as I know they have some discretion, he checked by driving record which was clean; and came back with a formal caution.
I thought that was nice of him; and entirely reasonable.
The caution, just like any fined-ticket is recorded and in the system.
If I were pulled over again for a similar offense within a short-period, I'm sure I would have had to deal with a fine.
As it should be.
In the case of transit fines, they are already recorded. They have to be.
The proposal here allows for a written caution or warning that would stay in the 'system', as opposed to a fine, allowing for discretion if there's no track record of a problem.
ie. you get the benefit of the doubt the first time.
I think that's one way of diffusing some of the tension about what really is an obscenely high fine for an average person.
Let's be clear, a fair comparison for fare evasion is not paying the meter/pay and display for on-street parking.
The fine for that is $30.
So the fine for transit is up 14x larger than the comparable violation for a driver.
A parking ticket also comes with legal challenges you can use, including the meter/machine was broken; or there was no sign etc. etc.
A fare-evasion ticket should legitimately allow comparable defense. If the presto scanner at the door you enter by isn't working, and the vehicle is crush-loaded......
**
My final thought on this is that income-contingent fines make sense; I've long advocated for them for speeding/stunt driving etc.
A fine, should be a deterrent. $50 is a lot of your on social assistance or a modest pension; but its nothing if you earn six or seven figures.
Making fines a % of annual income makes all the sense in the world to me, so they hurt proportionately the same and have the same deterrent value, no matter your income.
That said, the countries that have done this have tied police computers directly to the taxation database. This country has not done that, and it likely isn't even legal currently.
So that idea must wait.
In the meantime giving officers discretion to deal both with honest mistakes and with those who truly can't pay saves the system more than it costs it.