Houston Mayor decides to turn red light cameras back on despite voters winning to have them shut off

Mayor: Red light cameras to be turned back on

Mayor Annise Parker made the announcement Wednesday that the controversial red light cameras are going to be turned back on. They had been turned off last November after voters said they didn't want them, and a legal battle has been waging ever since.

After a judge ruled the referendum on the cameras was invalid on June 17, the company that runs Houston's red light cameras, American Traffic Solutions, hand-delivered a letter June 20 giving the City of Houston until August 1 to decide what to do.......

Link

Let's see, the voters rule on a referendum to shut off the red light cameras, and they win. They shut them off. Then a judge comes in and decides that the voter referendum was illegal (no surprise there).

So basically, the legality of the referendum wasn't even researched before the vote even took place?? Why not wait for the appeal process to end before turning the cameras back on?

Everything's a sham now. They're basically just telling you how it's gonna be, and you're gonna like it because you're scum sucking filth.

Peace

Sounds like she said, " Voters? Phhhht! Who are they to tell us what's what?".

Also sounds like the voters need to serve her up a set of walking papers.
If there is no recall possible, vote her out next time.

Edit to change gender of mayor, turns out he is a woman!

Originally posted by butcherguy
..he is a woman!..

You could say that ..........but I don't want to delve into that aspect.

Peace

This is nothing but a money generating scheme.

What happens if I ignore the Notice of Violation?

Failure to pay the civil penalty or to contest liability prior to the 45th day after receipt of the notice is an admission of liability, and failure to appear at an administrative adjudication hearing after having requested a hearing is an admission of liability and constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal. Failure to pay the civil penalty within 45 days after receipt of this Notice of Violation shall result in the imposition of a late-payment fee of $25. If the second notice remains unpaid,collections proceedings and entry of judgment against you may proceed.

Will I receive any points on my driving record for this violation?

No,this is a civil infraction that is not reported to the Texas Department of Public Safety. Will my insurance rates be affected? No, this is a civil infraction that is not reported to any insurance agencies.

Source

It just shows that this isn't about enforcement, it's about collecting fees.

Probably decided that there wasn't enough revenue just having officers pulling people over.
So having the cameras on, would increase revenue.

Of course that's what the mayor did.
Because holding political office is a business.
Not a service for the people.

Well, we know she took on a City that was immersed in the biggest Debt scheme ever. That previous to her, all the Mayors and Councilmen took it upon themselves to "play it like they won the Lottery" (I should try to find that article, it was on ATS about a year ago or so). This is desperation and it is reaching for any and all means to support the madness.

So, in the most idiotic way, they need every penny they can get in order to keep it all going, if that is even possible. They will criminalize their constituents and they will bastardize their pride!

One day the lights will go out in the City of Houston! GOD help them!

In my own words regarding Houston, it is a City that "Loves to Love you, but hates to Love!". That was my assessment when I lived there.

This may not be the exact ATS Thread, but it spells it out clear enough: City of Houston is Bankrupt

It sounds to me like the mayor is trying to save the city a $20 million penalty by appealing the judge's decision. So it seems like he is acting in the best interest of the people and the city. He wants the people to vote in a legal referendum. Your accusations are misplaced.

And an aside...they mentioned ATS!!!

ATS claimed the election on red light cameras -- Proposition 3 on the November ballot -- was improperly called because the city did not have the legal authority to hold a special election on the issue.

They say you can't fight city hall, and for all intents and purposes they're right; you can however burn city hall down and start over.

Every red-light camera is part of the grand money making scheme that the government of the USA has become. In the state I live In it is legal to turn right on red unless there is a sign saying otherwise, they couldn't change the law(regardless if they were to try or not) so they began putting up more signs. We began getting red-light cameras as well recently and I have twice seen people getting their pictures snapped when making a legal right turn at intersections without signs.

There is no government for the people, only against the people; your money is their money there is nothing you can own they can't take legally or illegally and then justify later.

Originally posted by mishigas
It sounds to me like the mayor is trying to save the city a $20 million penalty by appealing the judge's decision. So it seems like he is acting in the best interest of the people and the city. He wants the people to vote in a legal referendum. Your accusations are misplaced.

I don't believe for a minute the legality of the referendum wasn't researched beforehand, and if what you say IS the case, it was all a dog and pony show that they knew would give them the right to do this.

Why wasn't the red light camera company ATS (not us ) up in arms about it's legality from the very start?

Peace

reply to post by Dr Love

Originally posted by mishigas
It sounds to me like the mayor is trying to save the city a $20 million penalty by appealing the judge's decision. So it seems like he is acting in the best interest of the people and the city. He wants the people to vote in a legal referendum. Your accusations are misplaced.

I don't believe for a minute the legality of the referendum wasn't researched beforehand, and if what you say IS the case, it was all a dog and pony show that they knew would give them the right to do this.

Seriously? You don't think that city govt's can make a mistake?

Look what the city faced if they left the lights off:

The city was given the option of either turning on the cameras or paying damages for as much as $20 million, and the mayor today said the city will file an appeal to the ruling that the proposition was invalid.

The mayor could've just as easily not filed an appeal, citing it was too expensive to litigate.

And I see this as a sign that this is not a case of revenue generation; it's obvious that the city will drag it's feet to stall actual implementation:

The city said ticket issuance will resume after a short period of equipment testing.

Why wasn't the red light camera company ATS (not us :lol up in arms about it's legality from the very start?

Maybe they did better research? After all, they were the ones who brought suit...

But just to be sure, you'll need to ask ATS.

Not everything is a conspiracy.