Posted on 11/29/2010 12:03:55 PM PST by a fool in paradise
Federal Judge Blocks Red Light Camera Removal in Houston, Texas
Houston, Texas city attorneys attempt to preserve red light camera program by throwing lawsuit filed with vendor.
A federal judge issued an order last Friday blocking the immediate removal of red light cameras from Houston, Texas intersections. On November 2, voters adopted an amendment to the city charter making photo tickets unenforceable, against the wishes of the Houston city council and the private vendor that operates the cameras, American Traffic Solutions (ATS). Over the Thanksgiving holiday, US District Court for the Southern District of Texas Judge Lynn N. Hughes worked out a deal with the city and ATS to preserve the cameras, for now.
"The city of Houston and American Traffic Solutions, Inc, will continue to collect the fines for the traffic violations that occurred through November 15, 2010," Hughes wrote in his order. "The cameras will not be removed during the pendency of the litigation."
Hughes had called a colloquy among lawyers for the city -- David Feldman and Hope Reh -- and the lawyers for ATS -- Andy Taylor and George Hittner -- on the day after Thanksgiving. Although the city technically filed suit against ATS, the city staff do not want to see the cameras removed any more than ATS does. The parties hashed out a compromise that happened to give ATS everything the firm wanted.
"ATS requests the court to preserve the status quo by enjoining the city from terminating the public safety program or otherwise implementing Proposition 3, pending an adjudication of these fundamental issues of law affecting not only these parties, but the general public at large," Taylor wrote in its brief to the court filed Wednesday.
The actions in Houston track what happened last year in the city of College Station after voters approved an anti-camera referendum. Attorneys for the city attempted to lose the lawsuit that ATS filed to overturn the result of the public vote. Ultimately, public pressure on elected officials forced the College Station cameras to come down, even though a local judge ruled against the vote. ATS is hoping it can win this time by arguing not only that voters have no right to overturn a city council decision through the charter amendment process, but that no power can take down the red light cameras.
"Both the US Constitution and the Texas Constitution prohibit legislation impairing the obligation of contracts," Taylor wrote. "The purported charter amendment cannot validly be upheld if doing so would in any way impair the city's ability to fulfill its pre-existing contractual obligations to ATS."
Those obligations are iron clad, ATS argued, thanks to the city's own actions. The firm pointed out that Houston did have a contract provision that would have allowed a "termination for convenience" without financial penalty. Just three days before this provision would have taken effect, the city signed a new agreement with no termination provision in an attempt to avoid a proposed ban on new red light camera contracts, House Bill 300, that passed in the state House but was blocked in the Senate.
"The city, fearful of HB300, did not want to be forced to terminate the agreement upon the passage of a new state law and therefore, removed the termination provisions of the agreement entirely by clearly stating in the amendment that it 'remains in effect until May 27, 2014,'" Taylor explained. "The city also removed 'unless sooner terminated under this agreement' phrase that appeared in the original agreement. Had the city intended to keep its termination options available to it, it could have easily done so."
Judge Hughes has set a Friday hearing for arguments in the case.
A federal judge issued this order? If the local cops aren’t supposed to enforce federal law toward illegal immigrants, let it be known that they will not be enforcing laws regarding property damage to these cameras. At the very least, treat it as a civil issue, not criminal.
A “Cool Hand Luke” solution. Rip them out.
Lawsuit between the Arizona firm that expects to be getting red light camera money and a city in Texas.
>>Everyone on this forum is going to blow hot air about these things, but no one is going to do anything.<<
Actually, over 400 a year are torched in the UK. In the US, most of them can be crimped at the bottom with a good impact with a maul and then pulled down with a rope. I noticed that they are on hollow aluminum posts in every city I’ve been in.
Not that I’m advocating doing it, nor have I ever done it, but it could be done, if people are in need of a good local tea party.
Also, I noticed this in the article: “On November 2, voters adopted an amendment to the city charter making photo tickets unenforceable...”
And this legal excuse for keeping them in force: “Both the US Constitution and the Texas Constitution prohibit legislation impairing the obligation of contracts,” Taylor wrote. “The purported charter amendment cannot validly be upheld if doing so would in any way impair the city’s ability to fulfill its pre-existing contractual obligations to ATS.”
If I understand this correctly, it means that the will of the people can stand, but the city is now gonna have to honor its contract without funds from tickets, which are no longer enforceable.
It’s like signing a contract to hire a company to supply toll booth operators for three years on a bridge, assuming it will be paid for via tolls charged for using the bridge, and then the people pass a law prohibiting the collection of the toll. The contract will be honored and the toll booths and workers will remain until the end of the contract, but the toll booth workers will be useless and another means of financing the monthly contract payments will be necessary.
At least, that is the way I interpret it.
The police can still enforce the law against running the red lights by writing the offender a ticket in person.
These cameras wrote a ticket against the owner of the car, did not go against the points on his license, and carried little bite when it came to actually getting the money.
There was no movement to do away with the laws against running red lights. The manner of enforcement was sketchy at best and solely rooted in raising revenue, not safety.
I fail to see why this is in Federal court. I must be missing something.
Except in this case the city WANTS to continue to collect the money and split it with the Arizona company and will do everything it can to arrive at that end even if it is unnecessary under the law.
Dispute between parties in two states.
If an insurance provider or a manufacturer of a product you are suing is out of state, you head to federal court.
>>Except in this case the city WANTS to continue to collect the money and split it with the Arizona company and will do everything it can to arrive at that end even if it is unnecessary under the law.<<
There is enough ambiguity that if I lived there I would definitely NOT pay the fine, if I got a ticket in the mail (after the date the passed referendum was to take effect).
If they tried to collect, I could make possible big money with the follow-up lawsuit.
If it is over compensation for a broken contract pay it and then fire them and then the City Council.
If Houston was run by ethical people instead of Democrats, that would be the resolution to this matter.
Aw hell. A couple of 5.56mm rounds will take them down easy.
If this judge is successful in overturning the will of the voters in Houston, you may well see a lot of dead cameras.
I can think of some great signage to place on the corpse of a dead camera.
The least threatening would be:
"Compliments of your Friendly Neighborhood Constituent-Man".
The most effective would be something like:
"We had a choice here but decided on shooting the cameras instead of the corrupt politicians who determined the voters were irrelevant."
“Just three days before this provision would have taken effect, the city signed a new agreement with no termination provision in an attempt to avoid a proposed ban on new red light camera contracts”
So they did this as an intentional act to circumvent the law.
That is a type of fraud. Bring all the council members who did this up on charges and throw them in Jail.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if a bunch of these cameras mysteriously ended up installed in the homes of city council members and embarrassing locations they frequent. :)
As I understand the federal bench at this point in time, they believe that the people cannot change a decision to which they object.
Absolutely fascinating.
Who’s to say that a judge cannot overrule the election of a candidate not desired by the bench for some similar reason. It simply requires a little sophistry, a little legerdemain, a little influence, a little media, and a complacent people.
Once again, this proves that the majority of voters still don't get it.
If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you're still voting for evil.
The only real solution is to stop voting for incumbents --period.
Looks like it might come to this...Wouldn’t offend me one bit...
http://www.txs.uscourts.gov/district/judges/lnh/biography.htm
They are hiding who appointed him very well...I’m still digging...
Not that anything I find out will matter in the long run...
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.