Posted on 02/16/2011 1:59:14 PM PST by Ken H
Red light camera company sues Baytown, Texas over results of anti-camera referendum.
Traffic camera vendor American Traffic Solutions showed no municipal love as it filed a breach of contract suit against Baytown, Texas on Monday. The St. Valentine's Day complaint accused the city of failing to approve the mailing of an expected number of red light camera citations generated by the company.
According to court filings, ATS generated 2420 tickets in November 2010, and the city accepted all but 425 -- an 82 percent approval rate. The next month, ATS generated 2837 tickets, but the city only approved 587 -- a 21 percent rate. By January, the city had only approved two tickets.
ATS insists that failure to allow the mailing of tickets constitutes material breach of a contract binding through the year 2019. For its part, the city is unable to approve any tickets because voters approved a referendum in November prohibiting the use of red light cameras unless a police officer is present to witness any alleged offense. ATS has refused to acknowledge this public vote.
"As you know, the entire purpose of the program is to automate the detection of red light runners without the necessity of relying upon personal observation by a peace officer," ATS lawyer Andy Taylor wrote. "That is why the agreement involves the city's use of the Axsis system 'only for the purpose of detecting a violation or a suspected violation of a traffic-control signal.' By changing the program to require personal observation of red light running by a peace officer, the city has unilaterally breached the material terms of the agreement."
The city countered that ATS is not entitled to any compensation because the company has breached the contract.
"On November 15, 2010, the voters of the city of Baytown, through the initiative process, enacted an ordinance which altered the law regarding automated red light enforcement systems," interim City Manager Robert D. Leiper wrote. "According to the new law, a peace officer must witness the violation in order for a civil penalty to be assessed. This new requirement imposed by law does not eliminate the automated red light traffic enforcement system in Baytown but merely adds another step which must be satisfied for notices of violations to be issued. ATS agreed in Section 12 of the agreement that it 'shall at all times comply with... all local laws, ordinances and regulations...' but has failed to date to comply with this new law."
To add insult to injury, Baytown sent ATS a bill on January 25 demanding $4946 to cover the firm's share of the cost of red light camera ticket refunds. ATS turned to a Harris County judge to ask for a trial that would settle whether the company can recover the full amount of its investment in the Baytown program. Byron Schirmbeck, who led the initiative petition effort as director of saferbaytown.com, says this case is proof that the camera program has always been about the money, not safety.
"I sincerely hope that any city considering entering into a contract with a photo enforcement corporation contacts the city of Baytown to see what kind of headache they will be facing if they decide to get in bed with this organization, and then the cameras are forced out with a vote," Schirmbeck told TheNewspaper. "The profits you make won't be worth it."
Rent seeking at its finest!
I agree with the company believe it or not. The greedy city invited them in and now they are rushing out after people got fed up. So pay the company for the expenses, preferably from the city’s pension fund.
Baytown, like Houston will have to pay up bigtime to get out of their contracts.
Really? I suppose the secured bondholders for GM will be extraordinarily happy to hear that.
Besides, it seems that the bozos running the red-light camera scam seems to have screwed itself by not having good enough shysters writing their contracts.
ATS agreed in Section 12 of the agreement that it 'shall at all times comply with... all local laws, ordinances and regulations...' but has failed to date to comply with this new law."
My heart bleeds for the buzzards. Not.
hoisted on their own petard.
Letting a private business collect traffic fines is destined to fail, and guaranteeing a certain amount of revenue from the city is simply retarded.
No doubt while she was talking on her cellphone...
The correct comparison would be to police officers being paid on a commission basis.
No, wait a minute...
They are, aren't they?
Not only that, but it doesn’t work as anticipated.
I’m STILL fighting two tickets from two years ago. Legal right turn on red, after a stop and checked to be sure there was no oncoming traffic, and I get ticketed.
And I will continue to fight this police state bullsh....
Logic rules, symbols, text signs, colored glass with bulbs behind them have little to no effect on crazy people.
It’s crazy to expect crazy people to act non crazy.
This reminds me of the over credentialed lefties I know who say who would rob,rape, break in to my house for a couple of hundred bucks. I say about 60 million people, and depending on your neighborhood, one out of two will, for a couple of hundred, break in, rape you, rob you and then kill you.( Not necessarily in that order ). They, the logic lefties, still usually don’t get it.
I don’t blame you. At no time should the police or traffic laws be used simply as revenue generation. This is now just another form of taxation.
Another good example of how flawed that system is:
*I* was driving *MY* vehicle. The tickets were issued to my WIFE. I have told them no less than twice per call, with at least a few calls a month, for TWO YEARS, that I was the driver. They STILL have it registered to my wife.
For a legal right turn at a red light.
I refuse to pay it. My wife refuses to pay it. We will continue fighting. We have never had an issue with owning up to our responsibilities. We believe in accountability. But THIS is nonsense.
That’s the ridiculous part is they have no idea who to actually issue the ticket to. They just want their money and this is their way of getting it without working for it.
Yeah, even when I say “It was ME!” they can’t get it right.
LoL! gotta luv the gub’mit
i heard sumptin the other day that 2 things in lew of the cameras which would be effective.
1.) Longer yellows , 2.) an actual 4-way red light before changing to green. Thinking about it makes sense.
i heard sumptin the other day that 2 things in lew of the cameras which would be effective.
1.) Longer yellows , 2.) an actual 4-way red light before changing to green. Thinking about it makes sense.
i heard sumptin the other day that 2 things in lew of the cameras which would be effective.
1.) Longer yellows , 2.) an actual 4-way red light before changing to green. Thinking about it makes sense.
Since the November election when Houstonians voted down this crap...The cameras are still up, they say they are not operating, not collecting revenue, and that the company that installed them has the city of Houston tied up in court to decide the fate of these fines and cameras...
Well, I can tell you the people voted them down, and if my math is right, a 120 moratorium on the existance of these cameras is about to expire...March 2nd is open season on the hardware as far as Iam concerned...
They’ve had their chance to screw us over much longer than they were supposed to...
Obviously they do not respect, nor listen to the people anymore...
There are only about 70 of these things around town...
For now...
I like cheese. The sky is gray today.
The city was really frikkin’ stupid not to have a terminate-for-convenience (or modify-for-convenience) clause in the contract.
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.