Matt,
Perhaps in your neck of the woods, the cameras were installed for altruistic reasons (cough, cough) but the vast majority here were promoted by private companies who took a large percentage of the fines, to the point that as the number of tickets issued and/or were actually paid decreased, the cameras became unprofitable.
Also, at least in San Diego, there were numerous instances where yellow light timing was deemed too brief considering speed limits. Once a few cases wended their way through the court system and it was determined the yellow light was too short, cities were forced to either turn the cameras off or reset the lights. In either case, receipts plummeted.
Also kudos to local talk radio wags like former SD Mayor Roger Hedgecock who, after being involved in a severe rear-ender at the location of a red light camera, took up the battle cry against them, calling them "Red Light Scameras" and urging ticket recipients to fight them in court.
The "fishing holes" concept sounds awfully similar to Arizona's movable "speed traps" that have since been shut down.
<edit> By the way, this isn't new. Even in 2001, Washington, DC was the poster child for red light cameras. In a CBS article on July 31, 2001, it says:
"In fact, millions are made. In Washington, both the city and the contractor that developed the system expect handsome gains from red-light camera tickets — about $117 million for the city and $44 million for the unit of Lockheed Martin Corp. which supplies red-light cameras by 2004.
Lockheed Martin and the city of San Diego are defendants in a class-action lawsuit brought by motorists ticketed by the system. After the hearing, a Lockheed Martin official acknowledged in San Diego the firm received $70 from each ticket issued."