Comments

  • they should put green light cameras theres a lot of people in PL that dont move on green lights!!!

    June 25, 2011 at 1:05 p.m.
  • leave it to a miserable town like port lavaca to be running such a scam. im shocked that refugio hasn't slapped cameras up and down 77 yet.

    June 25, 2011 at 12:20 p.m.
  • And the camaras are providing $278,840 in fines and only 17.7% is being given back to the city. Accidents are bad for everyone and no one want's then to happen. The city is leaving a large part of $221,713 on the table without a good explination. The majority of funds should stay in and be used by the city to lower your taxes.

    June 25, 2011 at 11:16 a.m.
  • Safety is an issue. Red light cameras help to reduce side impact collisions. Money is an issue. There is money to be made from those that RUN RED LIGHTS and the city's portion of the money from those that RUN RED LIGHTS has to be spent on traffic related issues. I would rather these things be paid by RED LIGHT RUNNERS that from increasing my taxes. If you don't like it, stop at the dang red light. How hard is this? And, by the way, this is from someone who has paid for my wife's THREE red light camera tickets. I still support the cameras. Quit all the whining.

    June 25, 2011 at 10:49 a.m.
  • PL is nothing more than a red-light camera district full of fat chicks.

    June 24, 2011 at 11:06 p.m.
  • the "other" costs are expenses for the program the city writes off against the cost of the program so they can reduced the amount of profits they claim they made so they don't have to send as much to the state and can try to tell us they don't make any money off of it. These costs usually include pay for cops, postage, computers, you know, stuff cities are usually supposed to pay anyway. This means that in addition to making the bottom line profit they also offset $57k in expenses they would normally have anyway.

    June 24, 2011 at 2:28 p.m.
  • Maybe it is "pocket change"?

    June 24, 2011 at 12:40 p.m.
  • What is "Other assorted costs"? $57,127

    If I was a Calhounian I would like to know what the "Other assorted costs" are.

    Yeah it's only a full 20% of the money floating around this deal. I guess most people aren't worried about where 20% of a business transaction floats off to.

    Other assorted costs???????????? I'm laughing out loud here.

    June 24, 2011 at 12:09 p.m.
  • $172,220 + $57,127 = $221,713 in fines (Taxpayer money) leaving the city to a business outside the county. Is this reverse economic growth? Who is profiting from this windfall? The city receives $49,493 (17.7 %) of the funds collected. What a deal in booming Port Lavaca!!!!!!

    June 24, 2011 at 11:56 a.m.
  • It's not about safety, it's about $$$$$

    June 24, 2011 at 11:26 a.m.
  • Fines Collected = $278,840
    City of Port Lavaca = $49,493
    Redflex = $172,200
    Other Cost? = $57,127

    Is the issue safety or profit? This does not pass the smell test.

    June 24, 2011 at 10:06 a.m.
  • How do we get these cameras installed in Victoria. I think all these people in Port Lavaca that like to run red lights have come to Victoria. I spend a lot of time in your town and anyone claiming it has no effect on driving habits is an idiot.

    June 24, 2011 at 9:57 a.m.
  • Here we go again, the wait and see approach. I guess to get anything done you have to file suit to get someone to do what they say they would do and what is right for the citizens of Port Lavaca. What hypocrites to say one thing and do another. It's time they are held accountable for their actions. Guess we are going to have to drag them kicking and screaming to the poles!!

    June 24, 2011 at 4:15 a.m.
  • There has got to be a lawyer in Port Lavaca wanting to make a name for himself with a slam dunk case like this, someone please contact Carl Baugh and get this case filed.

    June 23, 2011 at 11:16 p.m.
  • Does anyone remember what that hypocrit Whitlow said when they denied the petition? It wasn't that this should have been offered as a referendum it was that they were waiting to see if the federal judge would allow petitions on "safety" items like this. Here are his own words.

    At the heart of the issue, said Whitlow, is safety.

    "If it involves a safety issue, you cannot petition to have it changed" because it is a matter for the council to decide, he explained.

    "At some later point, if the federal judge rules you can have this issue on the ballot then in all likelihood we will have this placed on the ballot."

    He said if the judge ruled it could be voted on the city would put it on the ballot. Now they have come up with another excuse? Why are they so afraid of a vote? PUT IT ON THE BALLOT YOU TYRANTS!
    Can't stand liars.

    June 23, 2011 at 11:15 p.m.