By Douglas V. Gibbs
In California the war over Red Light Cameras at traffic intersections is being waged city by city, to the point that lawsuits are emerging in an attempt to stop the citizens from petitioning their local governments for a redress of grievances. Cities like Murrieta claim the cameras reduce accidents, and provides much needed revenue for the city. The real interests lie in the private companies that maintain the camera systems, who are willing to do anything to protect their profit source, including going after citizens who dare challenge them.
The Red Light Cameras in Murrieta have proven to not necessarily translate into safer intersections. In reality, the cameras compromise safety, while generating little revenue for the city, and providing huge profits for the company maintaining the cameras. In the case of Murrieta, the company is American Traffic Solutions (ATS), and their interest in the four cameras in the Southern California city is not about safety, but giving out as many tickets, at nearly $500 a pop, as possible.
The City of Murrieta pays $58,200 per quarter for the camera lease and maintenance. The cost for the three police personnel running the program annually is 47,299.20. After subtracting those costs from the revenues received by the program, the net revenue annually for the city is about $18,149. This does not take into consideration the costs to the city in regards to any accidents caused by the cameras.
As for the identity of ATS, the company is located out of state in Arizona, which means the profits on the cameras are going out of the State. In September of 2008, the same month he invested $5 billion in Goldman-Sachs, Warren Buffet invested $58 million in ATS for one-third share, which means Buffet receives a share of Murrieta's $483 per ticket from the cameras.
As for the three main red light runners according to reports? Emergency vehicles (which, of course, is necessary), drunk drivers, and distracted drivers - none of which will be deterred by cameras. What the cameras do accomplish is making drivers more paranoid, and willing to slam on their brakes while the light is yellow.
Reports claim Red Light Cameras have little impact on the occurrence of automobile accidents, and rear-end accidents actually increase when Red Light Cameras are present.
The constitutionality of these cameras is also a concern. The cameras are in violation of the 5th Amendment because when ticketed motorists receive their ticket in the mail a photograph accompanies the ticket. By paying the ticket they are agreeing the photograph is of them, which means the motorist is expected to self-incriminate by accepting the photograph is indeed them. No burden of proof has been placed upon the ticketing agency.
Red Light Cameras also violate the 6th Amendment by not allowing the ticketed to confront the witness against them. In court no law enforcement personnel needs to show up. An inanimate device is the accuser.
There are alternatives for safer intersections in the City of Murrieta, rather than the presence of the continuously recording cameras (Big Brother, anyone?). The yellow-light time can be increased to the maximum time allowed, the city can add an all-red clearance interval, traffic signals can be made more visible, and the city can re-time traffic signals so that the signals are synchronized - which would reward drivers obeying the speed limit.
The war over the Red Light Cameras in California has resulted in 50 California cities removing Red Light Cameras from their cities due to an increase in accidents, as well as the excessive cost of the programs. In Los Angeles, for example, the cost of pursuing motorists who refused to pay the penalty on the ticket made the program so costly that no revenue was achieved. In addition to the 50 cities abandoning the program, in June of 2012, the California State agency Caltrans, District 8, no longer allows Red Light Cameras in their right of way. Caltrans has instructed Riverside and Victorville to remove cameras in State right of way because of the high accident rates as a result of those cameras.
In Murrieta, the person behind an initiative on the ballot designed to ban the cameras from the city's intersections is Diana Serafin. For her efforts, she is being taken to court for petitioning for a ban of the cameras, and the individual bringing the lawsuit against her says he does not know where the funding for his legal costs is coming from. The argument behind the lawsuit? The lawsuit argues that state law dictates that only the City Council, not voters, has the authority to change traffic laws, and thus to remove the cameras - thus stripping the citizen the right to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
The lawsuit was filed by Steve Flynn, chairman of Murrieta's Public Safety and Traffic Commission in the mid-2000s, and someone who was instrumental in the effort to install red-light cameras in the city.
Flynn has said he is not concerned about who the anonymous party is that is bankrolling the effort, and has simply said he was approached by attorneys asking him to serve as the public face for the case.
There is no doubt by those that support Diana Serafin that the money behind Flynn's case is coming from ATS, in the hopes of protecting their cash cow in Murrieta.
ATS has denied involvement, claiming they are not a party to the litigation.
ATS was a party to paying the costs of a similar lawsuit in Washington state last year, and in that case the Washington Supreme Court ruled that voters can't ban red-light cameras by ballot initiative.
"The cameras are not about safety. The cameras are about money," Serafin said. "The cameras don't stop accidents. Extend yellow lights, make all the lights red for four seconds, there's your safety. In this economy, people are sick about paying the roughly $500 for a ticket you can't fight in court."
The city, while supporting the presence of the cameras and claiming they make intersections safer, has indicated they are neutral when it comes to the lawsuit. Murrieta City Manager Rick Dudley said in an interview that city leaders had "absolutely nothing" to do with the case, nor do they know who is behind the effort.
Serafin, in a phone conversation with me a few weeks ago, said that what the lawsuit is attempting to do is strip citizens of their First Amendment Right to petition their government for a redress of grievances, a right the California State Constitution also protects.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Studies Show. . . - BanTheCams
Murrieta: Questions Raised Over Red-Light Lawsuit's Backers - North County Times/Californian
Murrieta: Lawsuit Seeks to Block Traffic Camera Initiative - Press Enterprise
Battle Over Red-Light Cameras in Murrieta - KABC 7 Los Angeles
Lawsuit Targets Murrieta Red-Light Camera Initiative - Murrieta Patch
No comments:
Post a Comment