PDA

View Full Version : City of Houston ignores the voters (red light cameras)




Nate-ForLiberty
11-07-2010, 09:06 PM
Houston's red light cameras stuck on yellow: Tickets still being issued despite vote down

Houston, you still have to stop at the red light. Or the camera will know.

Although Houstonians voted down the city's red light camera program in Tuesday's election to seemingly put an immediate end to the use of the devices (which have issued more than 800,000 tickets and collected $44 million in fines since 2006), the 70 cameras are still in operation as the city sorts out the exit strategy on its contract with ATS, an Arizona-based company that owns and operates the equipment. The city says that tickets will still be sent out to red-light runners caught on camera — and those tickets must be paid — until the program is officially ended.

"The citizens of Houston voted: the cameras have to come down. They have to quit issuing tickets," says Paul Kubosh, a Houston traffic attorney who helped get the issue on the ballot in the first place. "They are now violating the will of the voters."

Kubosh asserts that the cameras did not prevent accidents. He explains that the time of yellow lights is shorter at intersections with cameras and, thus, drivers receive undeserved tickets. He also cites that the city refused to release data proving the efficacy of the red light cameras. In fact, he sued the city for withholding the information. Additionally, recipients of red light camera tickets couldn't appeal them through the standard legal process.

Kubosh and his team will attend a city council meeting on Tuesday to dispute the maintaining of the cameras.

"We're going to ask the mayor in front of everybody, 'When are you going to cut off the cameras?' ," he says, adding, "I cannot believe she (Annise Parker) still has the cameras operating."

Just how the city will get out a five-year contract it signed with ADT in May 2009 remains to be seen. The agreement requires the city to provide the company with a 120-day notice of cancellation, which the city maintains is the reason it's continuing using the cameras. Houston City Attorney Dave Feldman told the Houston Chronicle that City Council will canvass the vote by Nov. 15 to ensure the election's accuracy. The city risks a lawsuit for ending the contract, Feldman warns.

"To be honest, I don't know what they're going to do," Kubosh tells CultureMap.

Although the defeat of Proposition 3 may sound like a victory considering none of us like pesky traffic tickets, the eventual removal of the cameras means a $10 million loss for Houston's budget, according to city officials.

Jim McGrath, a spokesperson of Keep Houston Safe, tells CultureMap, “We’re obviously disappointed. We put together an unprecedented safety coalition of police and firefighters and medical groups, like Texas Children’s Hospital, who rallied around the truth that red light cameras save lives. We’re sad that the distrust and fear amongst voters was to the extent that they couldn’t take the word of first responders that the program would do what we were saying it would do. There’s been a lot of misinformation out there the last four years.

"The other day the voters registered their preferences. What choice do you have but to honor that. That’s politics."

McGrath’s voice saddens, “The thing that really bugs me is a woman named Yolanda Macias who came to us through the campaign website to help with our cause. Her 4-year-old son was killed by a red-light runner. She was working the polls Tuesday in memory of her late son. She understands in a far too painful way the implications of not having these cameras up.”

What does this mean for Houston drivers? Obviously McGrath expects an increase in accidents while Kubosh does not. One dire possibilities exists regardless of which side you're on: The absence of cameras could strain the police force. The already severely undermanned HPD had looked forward to maintaining the program because it was a force multiplier. Each camera meant one less cop needed per intersection.

When asked how HPD will react, McGrath says he is unsure. "If they choose to beef up the traffic patrol where will they get the resources? Will they take officers off homicide?"

Another question lingers: What will happen to the cameras themselves?

We suggest that the city (or is it ATS?) raffle off the cameras or use them as mini time capsules. This could be an art project or slide show in the making.

However, due to the costly investment, it's more likely that ATS will remove the cameras and attempt to use them elsewhere.

http://culturemap.com/newsdetail/11-05-10-houston-red-light-cameras-stuck-on-yellow-tickets-still-being-issued-despite-vote-down/




Houston, Texas Attempts to Hide Red Light Camera Safety Data
Lawsuit filed against Houston, Texas for concealing red light camera accident reports.:mad:



Paul KuboshThe city of Houston, Texas sought to keep secret all detailed information about the performance of its red light camera program on the eve of an election that will decide their fate. Yesterday, Paul Kubosh, co-founder of Citizens Against Red Light Cameras, filed suit in Harris County District Court seeking a court order compelling the release of accident data at intersections equipped with automated ticketing machines. Voters head to the polls today to decide whether or not the city will be allowed to continue using the devices.

"The city of Houston is not in compliance with the Texas Public Information Act by reason of failing to release requested public information," attorney Randall Kallinen wrote in his brief to the court. "The monthly Location Performance Summary Reports from Houston red light camera contractor American Traffic Solutions, Inc., from September 30, 2008, to September 30, 2010, are public records under the Texas Public Information Act and not subject to any exception to release."

Kubosh had sent his request for these reports on October 5. Under state law, the city had until October 19 to either supply the information or petition the state attorney general for a ruling on why the material should be considered exempt. The city has done neither. The city's contractor, on the other hand, has been busy undermining the citizen initiative. As of October 25, American Traffic Solutions had spent $1.5 million in legal expenses for its failed effort to block the referendum in addition to an advertising blitz designed to rescue the program.

"Suppression has been the modus operandi by the pro camera advocates during entirety of the campaign -- from trying to deny the people the right vote to suppressing data that would expose the lie that is the red light camera," the anti-camera group's spokesman, Philip Owens, told TheNewspaper. "Sadly this is nothing new, but we are engaged in the fight and plan on finishing"

The documents are of particular interest because research in the nearby city of Baytown revealed that accidents increased 40 percent at red light camera locations. Baytown is also holding a citizen initiative to ban photo ticketing today.

In addition to release of the documents, Kubosh seeks reimbursement for his costs in filing the suit.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3310.asp

susano
11-07-2010, 09:12 PM
So, Houston is a dicatorship.

The only question seems to be - baseball bats for the cameras or city officials?

FrankRep
11-07-2010, 09:21 PM
Keep on Fighting! The people are winning!


Red-light monitoring will continue as city weighs legal strategy (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7278330.html)

Houston Chronicle
Nov. 3, 2010



Anti-camera activists slammed the delay Wednesday, insisting on immediately terminating the five-year contract — whatever the cost - with ATS, the Arizona firm that manages Houston's system. The May 2009 contract has a termination clause that requires the city to provide the company with a 120-day notice of cancellation, a period when the cameras will still be in full operation and civil fines issued, according to the city attorney.

"This issue is over, “ said attorney Paul Kubosh, who with brother Michael helped mount the successful campaign against the cameras. "This is not a legal issue, this is a political issue now. The voters don't care what the price of tea is in China. They don't care what the contract says. ... They want the cameras gone and just pay the damages.“

Paul Kubosh warned that City Council members who vote against immediately canceling the contract would be signing their "political death warrants“ and would face the ire of thousands of residents who receive tickets during the 120-day termination phase. He said if the termination clause in the existing contract is too expensive for the city to violate, those who made the bargain should be fired.

Anti Federalist
11-07-2010, 10:04 PM
So the contract with the corporation trumps a voter's plebiscite, natural law and the 4th Amendment.

Corporate tyranny is worse than government tyranny.

LibertyEagle
11-07-2010, 10:08 PM
So the contract with the corporation trumps a voter's plebiscite, natural law and the 4th Amendment.

Corporate tyranny is worse than government tyranny.

Well, in this case, it sounds like the corporate tyranny is facilitated by the government tyranny. :cool: Two little corporatism peas in a pod.

FrankRep
11-07-2010, 10:12 PM
Corporate tyranny is worse than government tyranny.


The May 2009 contract has a termination clause that requires the city to provide the company with a 120-day notice of cancellation.


Oh the horror and tyranny! Contracts are evil! :rolleyes:

nobody's_hero
11-07-2010, 10:13 PM
YouTube - 4409 -- Interview with ABC15 News: Easter Bunny eggs photo radar! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNzu78f9ZNg)

tremendoustie
11-07-2010, 10:15 PM
So, Houston is a dicatorship.

The only question seems to be - baseball bats for the cameras or city officials?

The cameras! And the sooner the better!

tremendoustie
11-07-2010, 10:16 PM
The May 2009 contract has a termination clause that requires the city to provide the company with a 120-day notice of cancellation.
Oh the horror and tyranny! Contracts are evil! :rolleyes:

Contracts made by government bureacrats using other people's money, which they will extort from them on threat of violence are evil, yes.

tremendoustie
11-07-2010, 10:17 PM
So the contract with the corporation trumps a voter's plebiscite, natural law and the 4th Amendment.

Corporate tyranny is worse than government tyranny.

Really, the government IS a corporation.

Anti Federalist
11-07-2010, 10:18 PM
The May 2009 contract has a termination clause that requires the city to provide the company with a 120-day notice of cancellation.


Oh the horror and tyranny! Contracts are evil! :rolleyes:

Which is why police, surveillance systems and prisons should never be privatized.

There should never, ever be a profit motive to trampling people's rights, spying on them or locking them up in cages.

Nate-ForLiberty
11-07-2010, 10:19 PM
I thought that a contract deemed illegal is void.

FrankRep
11-07-2010, 10:24 PM
Which is why police, surveillance systems and prisons should never be privatized.

There should never, ever be a profit motive to trampling people's rights, spying on them or locking them up in cages.

I think you just started a Libertarian/Anarcho-capitalist war in this thread. :)

FrankRep
11-07-2010, 10:25 PM
I thought that a contract deemed illegal is void.
How is the this contract deemed illegal?

Anti Federalist
11-07-2010, 10:31 PM
I think you just started a Libertarian/Anarcho-capitalist war in this thread. :)

Possibly. ;)

It's one of the reasons I've come to the conclusion that a nation, borders and government have role to play.

Limited, certainly, restrained by law, definitely, but a role to play.

Nate-ForLiberty
11-07-2010, 10:33 PM
How is the this contract deemed illegal?

Proposition 3 is an amendment to the City Charter

tremendoustie
11-07-2010, 10:35 PM
I think you just started a Libertarian/Anarcho-capitalist war in this thread. :)

Not at all. This is a case where government has coerced people, then farmed out their money to private interests.

In a truly free system, there would be a variety of options when it comes to roads -- personally, I would choose not to use roads with red light cameras.

It's when aggressive coercion is mixed with "for profit" motives that there's a major problem. AF is right to recognize this as evil -- but this evil would not have been possible without the state.

Nate-ForLiberty
11-07-2010, 10:36 PM
Sec. 45-481. - Purpose

The purpose of this article is to implement photographic traffic signal enforcement systems in accordance with Chapter 707 of the Texas Transportation Code.

(Ord. No. 07-985, § 1, 8-29-07)

Sec. 45-482. - Definitions.

As used in this article, the following words and terms shall have the meanings ascribed in this section, unless the context of their usage clearly indicates another meaning:

Owner of a motor vehicle means the owner of a motor vehicle as shown on the motor vehicle registration records of the Texas Department of Transportation or the analogous department or agency of another state or country.

Photographic traffic signal enforcement system means a system that:

(1)

Consists of a camera system and vehicle sensor installed to exclusively work in conjunction with an electronically operated traffic control signal; and

(2)

Is capable of producing at least two recorded images that depict the license plate attached to the front or the rear of a motor vehicle that is not operated in compliance with the instructions of the traffic control signal.

Recorded image means a photographic or digital image that depicts the front or rear of a motor vehicle.

Traffic control signal means a traffic control device as defined by Section 541.304 of the Texas Transportation Code.

Sec. 45-483. - Imposition of civil penalty and fees.

(a)

The owner of a motor vehicle is liable for a civil penalty of $75.00 if, while facing only a steady red signal displayed by an electronically operated traffic control signal located in the city, the vehicle is operated in violation of the instructions of that traffic control signal, as specified by Section 544.007(d) of the Texas Transportation Code.

(b)

An owner of a motor vehicle who fails to timely pay the civil penalty shall be subject to a late payment penalty of $25.00.

(c)

An owner of a motor vehicle who pays a civil penalty or late payment penalty by credit card shall be assessed a processing fee in accordance with Chapter 132 of the Texas Local Government Code.

(Ord. No. 07-985, § 1, 8-29-07)

Sec. 45-484. - Enforcement; procedures.

(a)

The police department, municipal courts judicial department, and the municipal courts administration department shall be responsible for the enforcement and administration of this article.

(b)

The police chief, the presiding judge of the municipal courts, and the chief clerk of the municipal courts shall establish and implement appropriate procedures to effect the policy of this article.

(c)

The imposition of a civil penalty under this article is initiated by the mailing of a notice of violation to the owner of a motor vehicle, pursuant to Chapter 707 of the Texas Transportation Code.

(Ord. No. 07-985, § 1, 8-29-07)

Sec. 45-485. - Administrative adjudication hearing; appeal.

(a)

An administrative adjudication hearing shall be held before an adjudication hearing officer pursuant to Chapter 707 of the Transportation Code.

(b)

Adjudication hearing officers shall be designated as follows: such officers shall be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the city council for a term of two years, which term shall begin as of the date the appointment is confirmed by the city council. An adjudication hearing officer shall continue in office after his term has expired until he is reappointed or his successor has been appointed and qualified; provided, that no holdover period, regardless of duration, shall ever be deemed a reappointment of any adjudication hearing officer. If any office becomes vacant during a term, then a qualified person shall be appointed and confirmed for a new two-year term beginning on the date of appointment. Adjudication hearing officers shall be subject to removal at any time by the mayor without the consent of the city council. Adjudication hearing officers shall be subject to assignment by the presiding judge of the municipal courts.

(c)

Adjudication hearing officers shall have the authority to administer oaths and to issue orders compelling the attendance of witnesses and production of documents.

(d)

An order compelling the attendance of witnesses or production of documents may be enforced by the municipal courts judicial department.

(e)

A person who receives a notice of violation under this article may contest the imposition of the civil penalty specified in the notice of violation by filing a written request for an administrative adjudication hearing pursuant to Chapter 707 of the Transportation Code.

(f)

On receipt of a timely request for an administrative adjudication hearing, an adjudication hearing officer shall notify the contesting person of the date and time of hearing. The hearing shall be held within 45 days of such request.

(g)

The owner of a motor vehicle determined by an adjudication hearing officer to be liable for a civil penalty may appeal that determination to a judge by filing an appeal petition with the clerk of the municipal courts pursuant to Chapter 707 of the Texas Transportation Code. The petition shall be accompanied by the payment of an appeal fee, which fee shall be $10.00 and which shall be refunded to an owner of a motor vehicle who prevails in an appeal.

(Ord. No. 07-985, § 1, 8-29-07; Ord. No. 08-27, § 2, 1-9-08)

Sec. 45-486. - Enforcement.

The city attorney is authorized to file suit to enforce collection of a civil penalty assessed under this article.

(Ord. No. 07-985, § 1, 8-29-07)

Sec. 45-487. - Disposition of revenue.

All penalties collected from the imposition of civil liability pursuant to this article first shall be expended to defray costs associated with the installation, operation, and maintenance of photographic traffic signal enforcement systems, and any remaining funds shall be deposited in accordance with Chapter 707 of the Texas Transportation Code. The city shall deposit its portion of the remaining funds in the police special services fund to be used in accordance with Chapter 707 of the Texas Transportation Code.

(Ord. No. 08-27, § 3, 1-9-08)

Secs. 45-488—45-500. - Reserved.

this is what is to be amended

http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10123&stateId=43&stateName=Texas

FrankRep
11-07-2010, 10:38 PM
Proposition 3 is an amendment to the City Charter
The Red Lights weren't illegal when the contract was signed. The Red Light company shouldn't be punished for this.

The City of Houston and the Red Light company can work out some kind of settlement agreement for compensation.

heavenlyboy34
11-07-2010, 10:42 PM
Phoenix metro has a lot of those cameras as well. They're so stupid! They can't take into account the reality on the ground the way a real person with a radar gun can.

devil21
11-07-2010, 10:44 PM
Jim McGrath, a spokesperson of Keep Houston Safe, tells CultureMap, “We’re obviously disappointed. We put together an unprecedented safety coalition of police and firefighters and medical groups, like Texas Children’s Hospital, who rallied around the truth that red light cameras save lives. We’re sad that the distrust and fear amongst voters was to the extent that they couldn’t take the word of first responders that the program would do what we were saying it would do. There’s been a lot of misinformation out there the last four years.

It appears this Jim McGrath is a lobbyist and PR guy for the ATS company itself, posing as a citizen's action group.

http://theleadernews.com/extranews130.html



Jim McGrath, a spokesman for Keep Houston Safe, a political action committee advocating the cameras, said the petition is illegal and represents an abuse of the city charter amendment process.

Keep Houston Safe is funded in part by American Traffic Solutions Inc., the Arizona-based contractor that administers the red light camera program together with the Houston Police Department.

An attorney representing the PAC has said it intends to challenge the validity of the ballot initiative in court.

heavenlyboy34
11-07-2010, 10:44 PM
Not at all. This is a case where government has coerced people, then farmed out their money to private interests.

In a truly free system, there would be a variety of options when it comes to roads -- personally, I would choose not to use roads with red light cameras.

It's when aggressive coercion is mixed with "for profit" motives that there's a major problem. AF is right to recognize this as evil -- but this evil would not have been possible without the state.

qft!!!

nobody's_hero
11-07-2010, 10:53 PM
The Red Lights weren't illegal when the contract was signed. The Red Light company shouldn't be punished for this.

The City of Houston and the Red Light company can work out some kind of settlement agreement for compensation.

Any chance of it being deemed an unconscionable contract?

(the problem is that the 'city' can't pay, it has to get the money from the taxpayers—maybe the city officials should have to personally buy out the contract, then they'll get an idea of what it costs to do things without asking for the people's consent, first)

Nate-ForLiberty
11-07-2010, 11:01 PM
The Red Lights weren't illegal when the contract was signed. The Red Light company shouldn't be punished for this.

The City of Houston and the Red Light company can work out some kind of settlement agreement for compensation.

A settlement agreement is fine and I think in the contract anyway. However, that is no reason to keep operating the cameras. The City of Houston continues to operate the cameras. That's the point. Not when they will physically be taken down.

People are still receiving tickets.

"void" probably wasn't a good choice of word. In fact, now that I think of it, the contract is still valid. It is the City that is in violation of the law.


*edit: there is an argument that it was illegal when the contract was signed.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. (Amendment VI)

Philhelm
11-07-2010, 11:01 PM
So, Houston is a dicatorship.

The only question seems to be - baseball bats for the cameras or city officials?

Yes.


I had spoken with a woman who had received a ticket from a camera, for running a red light. I had stated that the cameras shouldn't be there to begin with, but she said that they help reduce accidents by acting as a deterrant. So, of course, I ask her how that could be, since she had run the red light anyway. *crickets*

nobody's_hero
11-07-2010, 11:07 PM
Yes.


I had spoken with a woman who had received a ticket from a camera, for running a red light. I had stated that the cameras shouldn't be there to begin with, but she said that they help reduce accidents by acting as a deterrant. So, of course, I ask her how that could be, since she had run the red light anyway. *crickets*

Dr. Spock smiles upon you.

http://www.onlineforextrading.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/spock-logic-300x240.jpg

Brooklyn Red Leg
11-07-2010, 11:14 PM
Which is why police, surveillance systems and prisons should never be privatized.

There should never, ever be a profit motive to trampling people's rights, spying on them or locking them up in cages.

Actually, a private police force that fucks around with people's rights will automatically lose funding because people will stop paying. That's entirely different than the coercive State taking things at gunpoint to 'enforce the law'.

As for the street cameras, sorry, but the City gets to suck it up. The councilors and Mayor that signed the contract are culpable for it and should have to make up the difference outside the City's coffers.

Imperial
11-08-2010, 12:46 AM
The company lobbied against the measure. The city approved the measure to appear on the ballot. How in the heck did they not get an exit strategy ready just in case? Red light cameras have NEVER survived referendum; did they really think they would win. It is idiocy not to have a backup plan.

Mach
11-08-2010, 02:50 AM
It appears this Jim McGrath is a lobbyist and PR guy for the ATS company itself, posing as a citizen's action group.

http://theleadernews.com/extranews130.html

This must be the scam... same around here, local part-time city attorney and his family started a "citizens group" for safety after they were outed... with red funding. If local citizens would check up on their local politicians I'm sure they would find a nice little big bundle of red shit stinking up there neighborhoods too.

aGameOfThrones
11-08-2010, 04:49 AM
When asked how HPD will react, McGrath says he is unsure. "If they choose to beef up the traffic patrol where will they get the resources? Will they take officers off homicide?"

So...a traffic ticket is more important than investigating a homicide or other violent crimes? See? It's about the $$$, why are people still blind about this? It's not about safety, but $$$$.

BuddyRey
11-08-2010, 11:20 AM
If the city of Houston is defying the law and the public consensus by continuing to issue tickets, maybe the cameras should be...removed by the public itself. After all, we do live in a "democracy" don't we? ;):D

Anti Federalist
11-08-2010, 11:23 AM
If the city of Houston is defying the law and the public consensus by continuing to issue tickets, maybe the cameras should be...removed by the public itself. After all, we do live in a "democracy" don't we? ;):D

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm

;)

Pretty damn sad that the feckless Brits show stones over this than us pussified Americunts.

Anti Federalist
11-08-2010, 01:19 PM
///

payme_rick
11-08-2010, 01:41 PM
Pretty damn sad that the feckless Brits show stones over this than us pussified Americunts.

Ouch! true...

I live 100 miles South of Houston but I'd have to help... No one organizing a "Tear 'em Down" day yet?

Nate-ForLiberty
11-09-2010, 01:58 PM
update

http://www.click2houston.com/news/25684220/detail.html

Pericles
11-09-2010, 02:31 PM
update

http://www.click2houston.com/news/25684220/detail.html (http://www.click2houston.com/news/25684220/detail.html)

From the article "The vote came four years after the first cameras were activated in Houston."

And who was mayor of Houston 4 years ago?

Nate-ForLiberty
11-09-2010, 03:04 PM
From the article "The vote came four years after the first cameras were activated in Houston."

And who was mayor of Houston 4 years ago?

Bill White who was defeated by Rick Perry for Texas Governor.

TheHumblePhysicist
11-09-2010, 03:20 PM
Why don't residents destroy the cameras? I remember Robert Heinlein had a theory that if a law was imposed against the will of the people, the people would simply not obey the law, and sabotage any person or equipment that got in their way. What kind of mindless sheep are the people of Houston?