Comments

  • Good job Mr Baugh. watching the other votes here is what I predict is going to happen. A mysterious group supposedly made up of local citizens will come forward to fight the election. In reality the group will be set up and funded by the camera company. The city will coincidentally come up with a new report close to election time showing how great the cameras are and full of assumptions and poor analysis. The camera companies will have their employees and others create fake IDs to log on to threads like this and say how great the cameras are and how outrageous it is to vote and tell us how honorable the camera companies are. More people will make ridiculous arguments like "don't run red lights and you don't have anything to worry about" the camera company will pay for a poll that shows 70% of the city LOVES the cameras but they will end up getting voted out anyway, just like every other time they have been voted on. In the end the city will be stuck fighting the same camera company they were defending before as they sue to overturn the election. Then in the next town that gets a vote it will happen all over again.

    January 16, 2011 at 7:15 p.m.
  • The company approached the city council. Apparantly the council didn't think there was a problem or they would have been seeking out the company. The company provided a "study" to the council and the council signed up with the company. Do you suppose the study was concentrated on how much money the city could get out of the deal and THAT was the reason they signed up? If it was real law enforcement, the company wouldn't get a cut of every fine and the citizens wouldn't have to drive to Harlingen of all places to contest the ticket; they could do that at municiple court in Port Lavaca. The makers of police radar units don't get a commission on each speeding ticket their equipment is responsible for. The old Kendleton speed trap on Hwy. 59 had NOTHING on the Port Lavaca cameras. I count myself fortunate that I have little reason to ever to to Port Lavaca.

    January 16, 2011 at 12:13 a.m.
  • Pilot, I went to school with Billy Ray Earl Ed! She was a little bit on the wild side.

    January 15, 2011 at 7:43 p.m.
  • speed bumps would slow people down also dummy cameras would too! in Houston they're parking old police cars at certain intersections to make you think a cop is there!

    January 15, 2011 at 4:18 p.m.
  • ok ish like you never ran a red light cmon wake up and smell the coffee i say remove those stupid redlight cameras

    January 15, 2011 at 2:49 p.m.
  • data mining "fusion centers"... how do they work?

    January 15, 2011 at 11:17 a.m.
  • We all dislike government intrusion but unfortunately, we usually cause the problem. Was it really necessary to put “to be used externally” on a tube of Preparation H, “HOT” on a cup of coffee or “keep firearms pointed in a safe direction? When we screw up we want someone to blame. If no one ran red lights, there would be no such things as red light cameras.

    January 15, 2011 at 10:48 a.m.
  • The only folks opposed to the cameras are the ones who run the lights!!!

    January 15, 2011 at 10:37 a.m.
  • A recent newspaper article about Port Lavaca's cameras reported that incidents of red light "runners" has dropped since the cameras were first installed. This means one thing to me: The known presence of the cameras has reduced the number of unsafe driving practices. I feel safer.

    January 15, 2011 at 10:36 a.m.
  • Maybe the Chamber of Commerce could use the slogan, "Welcome to Port Lavaca, that'll be $75.00!" Red light cameras are nothing but a profit maker for a private company and the City done under a ruse of public safety. It is not considered a moving violation because an officer did not see it or issue the ticket so it doesn't count against insurance rates. That and you have to drive to Harlingen to contest it, makes people just accept it and pay the fine. Mo money fo da City!!!!!! So with this extra income, tax rates will go down? LOL

    January 15, 2011 at 10:06 a.m.
  • Cheesy way to make money.

    January 15, 2011 at 9:59 a.m.
  • Baugh became concerned about the cameras after slick streets caused his brakes to lock up, sending him skidding through a red light in December 2009

    Wasn't the cause that Baugh was driving to fast or not slowing down for a stale yellow light. Until "we" start taking responsibility for our own actions, there will be a need for someone to regulate what we do.

    January 15, 2011 at 9:54 a.m.
  • Here is a good way to get rid of those cameras. Stop running the red lights and the company will not make any money. Problem solved.

    January 15, 2011 at 9:43 a.m.
  • Come on Port Lavaca, you can't be dumb enough to believe these cameras do not do some good. Yes there are problems, but they slow down traffic and they make drivers more aware of the red lights.
    As for the petition, most of these folks would sign one doing away with the outlawing of cell phones in school zones too if they had the chance. Mr. Baugh,if you slide through intersections on slick streets, you are either driving too fast for the road conditions or you need to get your brakes checked. I don't live in Port Lavaca, but spend a lot of time there and I know I'm aware of the cameras and are more caucious when approaching them. I wish they would get them in Victoria where I watch people run red lights every day. Go ahead and eliminate them and when someone you know gets hurt or killed by someone running a red light, ask yourself how smart your decision was.

    January 15, 2011 at 8:53 a.m.
  • I believe cameras in troubled areas enable our police department to spend more time on life threatening issues. If you know there is a camera, a person is more likely to be more cautious about the speed limit. This may even save a life. We expect our law enforcement to jump at our beck and call and more of the time they do than don't. Our small and large communities are in need of effective assistance in keeping people safe. School zones would be great; look out cell phone users, and folks late for work. It is so easy to blame other for our own lack of responsibility. We are responsible for our own words spoken and action taken. Contrary to popular belief, the law is out there to protect, serve, and keep us safe.

    I wonder if a teacher has 18 or more students, in a restrictive area, for about 8 hours a day; how much area and how many peoples safety does a police officer have during his/her shift?

    January 15, 2011 at 7:52 a.m.
  • The study was conducted bvy Redflex. Bet that was an unbiased conclusion. Source of income was apparently the only consideration of council. Red light cameras in a small town? Either desperate or greedy.

    January 15, 2011 at 7:33 a.m.
  • This is a perfect example for all of the posters here to see how to legally beat City Hall! Quit complaining and start getting signatures. Do it right! CHANGE the law, not BREAK the law!

    January 15, 2011 at 7:17 a.m.