Posted on 11/03/2010 11:27:38 AM PDT by Ken H
In fifteen public votes, automated ticketing machines have never survived.
The public rejected the use of photo enforcement in five more municipal referendum elections Tuesday. America's fourth-largest city, Houston, Texas, was home to the most hotly contested vote. The group Citizens Against Red Light Cameras, run by brothers Paul and Randy Kubosh, gathered enough signatures to force the issue onto the ballot against the wishes of the city council and in spite of a legal attack from camera operator American Traffic Solutions (ATS).
Outspent by a factor of ten to one, the group nonetheless won a majority of the 335,778 votes cast on the measure. According to campaign finance disclosure documents, ATS poured $1,746,000 into the race, in a desperate attempt to salvage one of the company's most important accounts.
"Despite the opposition having every conceivable advantage the people saw through the hype and the emotional blackmail and saw the cameras for what they are, a money making scheme that violates our constitutional rights and risks driver safety for money," Citizens Against Red Light Camera spokesman Philip Owens told TheNewspaper.
Another ATS account was canceled by citizens in nearby Baytown, where 58 percent voted to terminate the red light camera program.
"Despite being far outspent, sued and harassed we ultimately prevailed because the truth was on our side," initiative sponsor Byron Schirmbeck said in a statement. "We are hopeful that the legislature will take up a statewide camera ban this next session so citizens won't have to rip the cameras out city by city. We also urge the Baytown council to abide by the will of the people, no matter what the outcome of any future lawsuits by the camera company they partnered with... The people have spoken, bring the cameras down."
On the west coast, the vote in Mukilteo, Washington was 70 percent against the automated ticketing machines. Tax-cutting initiative guru Tim Eyman organized the effort which earned a state supreme court order denying the attempt of ATS to block the people from voting. In Anaheim, California there was no camera vendor defending the program because the mayor and city council decided on their own to add a charter amendment prohibiting the use of red light cameras. The measure passed handily with 73 percent of the 45,000 votes cast.
"I am pleased with the outcome of today's red light camera ballot issue," Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle said in a statement. "Anaheim's voters recognized that red-light cameras are not a proven deterrent to traffic violations or traffic accidents, and I happen to agree with that assessment. Other cities have chosen to use red-light cameras as revenue producing tool, but the city council disagreed so we (city council) took the vote to the people, and they have spoken."
Garfield Heights became the fifth Ohio city to ban red light cameras and speed cameras, with a majority of the 9,194 votes cast insisting on the termination of all automated ticketing.
Earlier this year, 61 percent of Sykesville, Maryland voters overturned a speed camera ordinance. In 2009, eighty-six percent of Sulphur, Louisiana rejected speed cameras. The November elections included three votes: 72 percent said no in Chillicothe, Ohio; Heath, Ohio and College Station, Texas also rejected cameras. In 2008, residents in Cincinnati, Ohio rejected red light cameras. Seventy-six percent of Steubenville, Ohio voters rejected photo radar in 2006. In the mid-1990s, speed cameras lost by a two-to-one margin in Peoria, Arizona and Batavia, Illinois. In 1997, voters in Anchorage, Alaska banned cameras even after the local authorities had removed them. In 2003, 64 percent of voters in Arlington, Texas voted down "traffic management cameras" that opponents at the time said could be converted into ticketing cameras. Photo enforcement has never survived a public vote.
Damn straight. I’m in the Houston suburbs and didn’t get to vote on that particular prop ... but I’m glad it died.
SnakeDoc
Awfully nice of ATS to spend so much of its own money for our safety. After all, those traffic cameras are there just for our safety, right? right???
How can our county get this on a referendum? And get with it, Montgomery-- I'm tired of getting clipped every time I cruise through your sanctuary hellhole.
Houston PING
Of course. What other motivation could there possibly be?
I was going to say this too.
We live in the Clear Lake area and have to drive in red light camera areas because Clear Lake is part of Houston, but we did not get to vote on this even tho it could affect us.
My husband was hot about this issue and was doing the happy dance this morning when we saw it went down.
Let's see, lawyers liked them because they could go through the courts to "keep you from paying" if you hired them.
Cities liked them because they padded out city budgets and Houston even took note of the red light camera "revenue loss" when we lost power for weeks after Hurricane Ike. So instead they wrote $2,000,000 in public intoxication fines.
And the private company that gets half of the ticket charge likes them too because it's THEIR BUSINESS.
Now who is it getting rich off of people running red lights?
I've been rear-ended at green lights before. And red light cameras don't reduce accidents. Trial lawyers get gigs either way and ambulances/doctors don't seek to increase business (and again aren't seeing a drop in accidents).
So where is the profit motive in getting rid of the cameras?!!!
The city of Houston tried to challenge this even getting on the ballot because they said it should have been challenged the same year city council passed it.
So I guess we can’t repeal ANY measures. Or should just sit down, shut up, and let the nannystate dictate when we can talk.
It’s still illegal to run a red light. Put a cop out there writing tickets. Instead of stationing them under the highway u-turns writing tax tickets against those with expired inspection stickers.
Don't even think about stopping in Gaithersburg to shop - I go straight to Frederick ... 20 miles further, but that's how I choose to vote with my money ...
Okay, no flaming with your answers: I just have to ask everybody posting here: if you were speeding and the camera caught you speeding, how is that either an injustice or a violation of your constitutional rights? I ask because as a judge, prosecutor and defense counsel, I can’t get to a rights violation with ANY of those hats on, as there’s no right to break the law.
Remember the ground rules...
Colonel, USAFR
Didn’t I see where Baytown approved their use?
Voters in the City of Baytown also voted to get rid of their city's red light cameras. There the vote was 58 percent in favor of banning the cameras -- in a community that had about 10 cameras. Red
There was an attempt to get a referendum going but they didn’t get enough signatures.
Gaithersburg is not enough. Skip Rockville too.
I don’t shop a lot but I eat out a lot on the weekends.
I go to Virginia as often as possible. I’m planning on escaping the DPRM permanently one day.
I would think there is a potential 6th ammendment question. If you are being fined before you have been given a trial, you are “presumed guilty” before you can confront the witnesses.
I think the legal questions of the cameras is where does “due process” enter? If only photo evidence is taken, then how is their a witness or accuser?
If someone steals an item on camera, the police can use that camera to get a warrant to find hard evidence on the person. I dont think that the police can just use the video in the courtroom. The problem with cameras is that people are not making stops or citations.
Colonel, USAFR
1) It has been proven in court that they a) do not get everyone, and b) some they get are innocent (did not really run a red light - it just looked that way, or the license plate number was misread).
2) It has been proven that they reduced the time the light stays yellow (to catch more "light runners"), thereby actually making the intersection less safe.
3) Finally, the people should have a say when their city, town, state, whatever pass a law they do not agree with. Here, it's just too much to ask a private company to safely and effectively run the system when they receive revenue from the whole thing.
ABOVE: 1) was edited - no one has proven in court that they weren’t caught - at least as far as I know, LOL!!
I wasn't caught running a red light, an automobile registered to me was ...
It's a revenue scam, nothing more - nothing less.
1) You have a constitutional right to confront your accuser. Good luck cross-examining a camera.
2) The ticket goes to the registered owner of the vehicle. NOT the driver. You have to take time off of work to challenge this if you get a ticket.
3) These companies INTENTIONALLY lessen the time you have to go through a yellow light to enhance revenue. In some states, the government can’t issue traffic citations to raise more than a certain percentage of revenue. These red light cams are cash cows for the cities that operate them and their corporate partners.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.