|
|
|
www.theeagle.com/local/Sides-work-on-out-of-court-deal-on-camerasGlenn Brown was the one with Cargill who tried to turn it into a referendum, and his quote here is not reassuring: quote:
"We're much closer to a resolution," he said. "The goal has been to carry out the direction of 52 percent of our voters."
If that is the goal, my bet it that the election is agreed to be invalid, and the ordinance does not pass. But the council takes the cameras down for now, and Gordon/ATS/RLC supporters win because there is nothing preventing the cameras from coming back, which was Gordon's expressed goal.
|
|
|
quote:
In an effort to prevent a drawn-out, expensive period of litigation, the defendant (CoCS) agrees to the plaintiff's contention that the election was a referendum.
The city canvassed the vote. In that act they forfeited their position to claim referendum. Unless and until a RULING FROM A JUDGE overturns the election/ordinance then it is on the books.
|
|
|
Let me put it this way. You have to think about the ordinance and the removal of the cameras as two separate but related events.
The ordinance exists, and has since the council canvassed. The council elected to take down the cameras 3 hours later. For those three hours they were giving out tickets improperly.
The TRO forced the city to keep the cameras up, yet did NOTHING with the ordinance. All it did was keep the city from exercising the clause of the contract related to cancellation due to an unenforceable situation. Therefore the city has continued to give out improper tickets during the 9 days of the TRO.
Now the TRO has expired, so the city has the option once again to cancel the contract immediately due to the new ordinance.
The ordinance has been there since the canvass, and does not necessarily coincide with the removal of the cameras.
Now if the election is canvassed, 10 days ago, how can the city have the power to go back and remove the law passed by the voters? They don't. Their power was to challenge the petition prior to the vote, or to challenge it prior to the canvass (in court). They did neither.
The law suit has zero effect on the city's power to remove the ordinance and/or invalidate the election. Only losing in court, not by settlement but from a judicial decree, can invalidate the election and/or ordinance.
|
|
|
Stucco,
The devil is in the details though. An initiative is a new law, a referendum repeals an existing/new law/action.
If it upheld as an initiative then it makes RLC tickets unenforceable and thus a waste of time.
If it simply a referendum they can say the city's actions putting up the cams was voted down, instead of making it illegal for them to be used for law enforcement. The former means they will try again.
I will get off my soap box for now. I have had my coffee, settled a bit and I will wait and see what the "deal" was before continuing.
[This message has been edited by SparkyDClown (edited 11/21/2009 9:58a).]
|
|
|
wtaw.com/components/com_podcast/media/GlennBrown112009.mp3From this Glenn Brown interview on WTAW, it seems even more clear that the election validity was negotiated away (ie city will agree it was an invalid referendum) and it will be thrown out if the council agrees to it... quote:
Brown: As far as the election challange, that will probably be one of the points, if any kind of agreement is reached, so the election challenge, election issue will be addressed. I would rather not discuss the specifics on that until council has been briefed and we know what they are comfortable with.
Question: If Gordon wins, it could establish a situation in College Station where a citizen could not do an initiative petition, and if someone didn't take action within 20 days of council action to try to turn away a new ordinance, then that option goes away. Is that a possibility on the table here, sir?
Brown: Uh, I don't think so. I mean, uh, I think there's, uh, I, uh, I guess, uh, I would probably disagree that in this settlement agreement that's being uh you know worked out that anybody really wins. I guess, you know, both parties just agreed to the points that they are comfortable with.
Brown: I would like the citizens of College Station to know that their city is working hard to ensure the results of the election on Nov 3rd are carried out where, uh, 52% of the voters voted that the cameras should be, you know, turned off.
|
|
|
Good morning, all.
The only thing I can appropriately offer right now is what I observed Friday afternoon behind closed doors: Councilwoman Lyles, Mayor White and Glenn Brown worked extremely well as a team in terms of protecting the best interests of the city and its citizens, for both the short- and long-terms. The attorney, Bob Heath, was excellent. All of them will brief the entire council of their work in executive session on Monday.
|
|
|
I maintain that the city only had the authority to challenge the election in court. Since they have not, and the election was canvassed, it can not just disappear.
|
|
|
quote:
The only thing I can appropriately offer right now is what I observed Friday afternoon behind closed doors: Councilwoman Lyles, Mayor White and Glenn Brown worked extremely well as a team in terms of protecting the best interests of the city and its citizens, for both the short- and long-terms.
Perhaps you can understand, Jay, the discomfort some of us feel as we try to interpret the words of your that I chose to highlight. Many of us believe the City Council and the Mayor honestly feel the city and its citizens would be better off with red-light cameras, and perhaps one day with speed cameras, and thus will try every trick in the book to bring them back one day. Quotes made yesterday about a 60-day waiting period seem to reflect the absence of an initiative-produced law making the fines unenforceable. Last Monday, after the Council canvassed the votes and before the TRO took effect, the cameras were supposed to be turned off that day! Stucco, I understand your point. Can you see mine? [This message has been edited by Frenas (edited 11/21/2009 5:05p).]
|
|
|
I see that the city will try to compromise by ignoring the election, but that doesn't make it legal or right.
Without a judicial decree or TRO the lawsuit has zero, zero, ZERO, influence over the election.
|
|
|
So, worst case:
they somehow throw the election out and leave the door open for more cameras...
who is ready to help write, and pass an initiative to prevent something like this from happening again? One that says photo law enforcement is only allowed if the camera is manned at the time of the recorded violation...
or that photo evidence can only be used to corroborate an eyewitnessed violation...
As far as I'm concerned, we're getting dangerously close to blood. As more people cross this line, and are ready to take action and tear them down ourselves, I will seem less and less crazy.
|
|
|
[This message has been edited by TexasAggie008 (edited 11/22/2009 1:05p).]
|
|
|
quote:
who is ready to help write, and pass an initiative to prevent something like this from happening again?
Jim Maness (Ash's right-hand man) wrote the initiative that passed with 52% of the vote in the election. That's the way it appeared on the ballot. Here's another idea. What do we have to do to amend the City Charter to remove the 20-day limitation for filing a referendum?
|
|
|
quote:
or that photo evidence can only be used to corroborate an eyewitnessed violation...
Actually we were discussing this the other day. I would not oppose the city buying the cameras s long as they were used as evidence in combination with a traffic ticket or in the case of an accident to help determine what caused an accident. Of course it could also be used to prove guilt or not by either side.
|
|
|
Nice option, Schnauser, but that doesn't sound like a revenue producer for the city. Regardless of what the proponents say about the perceived safety benefits of the cameras, does anyone believe they'd have been there in the first place if there if the money stream hadn't been?
|
|
|
I think I am going to spend some time next week and find out how to gather accident info on all the intersections that have cameras and all the adjacent ones that don't.
It stands to reason that a reasonably high number of people who went through an intersection with an RLC then also went through one adjacent to it.
If we look at historical data and see similar trends in accident increase/decrease at surrounding intersections then the only thing the data the city/ats are presenting proves trends rather than definative proof that the cameras had the affect they suggest they do.
[This message has been edited by SparkyDClown (edited 11/22/2009 10:09a).]
|
|
|
Here is all the accident data. Some columns are auto-filtered. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/160363/Accidents%202005-present.xlsx
|
|
|
Stucco, That is a bunch of repetitive XML files. Or at least that is what I got. Thanks for th effort and no offense but I would like to get it from the state so it can't be said the info was not valid. 
|
|
|
It's an Excel 2007 file. It also had my filters applied. I went and got the original and saved it as Excel 2003. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/160363/Accidents%202005-present%20-%20Original.xlsI understand if you don't want to use it. This was the result of my open records request though.
|
|
|
As if it will do any good . . .Dear Mayor White: First, I thank you for the time spent in negotiations Friday afternoon, so that the "will of the people" can be implemented regarding the red light cameras. I would remind you, however, than when 52% of College Station's voters said "Yes" on Nov. 3, they were not only voting to take the cameras down. They also voted on a clearly labeled "initiative" to make such red light camera fines permanently unenforceable.In order to settle with the plaintiffs, did you, Council Member Lyles, and counsel bargain away this initiative-mandated law? In his interview with WTAW radio Monday night, attorney Roger Gordon said his clients' goal is to allow the City Council, at some future point, to bring the red light cameras back. That can't be done if the Nov. 3 law is in place. As the price of settling the litigation and getting the cameras turned off, did you agree that the Nov. 3 balloting was a "referendum" -- one that could be considered illegal because of the 20-day provision in the City Charter? Did the compromise agreed on Friday make it possible for the City Council to bring back red light cameras (and perhaps adopt speed cameras) at some point in the future? If so, Mr. Mayor, is this the will of the people? Sincerely, -------- I sent a copy of this letter to each city council critter. If you'd like to add your own: bwhite@cstx.gov
jcrompton@cstx.gov
jmassey@cstx.gov
dmaloney@cstx.gov
klyles@cstx.gov
lstewart@cstx.gov
druesink@cstx.gov
gbrown@cstx.gov
hcargill@cstx.gov (legal counsel critter) jsocol@cstx.gov (communications critter) [This message has been edited by Frenas (edited 11/22/2009 4:00p).]
|
|
|
Don't think they'll listen to citizens, but good letter anyway. Are y'all still working on that recall petition?
|
|
|
While I believe a few do need to be recalled regardless, I do not think it will go far unless something blatant can be shown as the reason why.
I await to see what the "deal" was.
If they bargained away my vote to make law that photographic camera fines are unenforceable then it will definately reinvigorate my desire to proceed.
Shutting off the cameras "for now" is not what I and 52% of the citizens voted for.
At least some of us are not as stupid as the council thinks.
|
|
|
I encourage all to attend the city council meeting tonight. If they vote to do anything it *should* be in public session.
I also suggest copying the media on your letters. The only way this will occur correctly is if people understand what is occurring.
|
|
|
quote:
Brown: As far as the election challange, that will probably be one of the points, if any kind of agreement is reached, so the election challenge, election issue will be addressed.
This quote given from above is disturbing. Looks like the council could still manage to really screw this up, but they have been camera proponents all along...
|
|
|
quote:
I encourage all to attend the city council meeting tonight. If they vote to do anything it *should* be in public session.
I will be there, although only for the public session, and will attempt to "live blog" the proceedings to this forum.
|
|
|
from all appearances, it looks like the City is bowing to the will of the 48%, rather than the will of the 52%.
Nice.
|
|
|
If the rumored deal is correct, then red light cameras have become an insignificant footnote in this drama in which the City government (primarily staff) has shown itself to be totally insensitive to fundamental tenants of our society. The citizens' right to vote apparently comes at a price equal to $4,500/camera and 2 months camera revenue.
Does anyone know the grounds for holding government officials individually liable for intentionally violating a citizen's rights? I would think that the amount of damages would be harder to calculate and prove than Weingarten's case, but there has to be some value associated with having the right to vote and being able to rely on the City Charter.
|
Page 4 of 4 (116 replies)
| |
|