Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
Here's the kicker. If you read the city charter once the city secretary certifies the petition as valid the ordinance is supposed to be suspended until the election. That means it doesn't even have to go to a vote to stop the cameras. This will be the test of whether the mayor and council respect their charter and the will of the people or if they will deny repealing the ordinance immediately and ignore the charter and the people like they did with the last petition. My money is on the city doing anything they can to keep the program.
the contract does run through I think 2014, it depends on what the courts will say, there will be a lawsuit, but they can't argue as they did in other cities that PL put the issue on the ballot erroneously, essentially the city will not have a breach of contract because it won't be their actions that broke the contract. I believe the view that redflex has to follow the local laws and therefore the contract is void would prevail in court but it just depends on what happens. There definitely will be a lawsuit by redflex or their paid front group Texas Traffic Safety Coalition, who does not even have a single board member in Texas, they are a PR firm paid by redflex out of Chicago.
there is no "paying off" the cameras and installation. They were put in at the expense of redflex in return for a guaranteed cut of the profits each and every month. That cut doesn't go down over time and the city never owns the cameras or equipment. Any contract with a government is subject to changes in the law, when the referendum passes there will be a change in the law.
getsmart, the contract says the vendor will abide by all state and local laws. When the ordinance is repealed there will be no law authorizing the cameras. It's a force Majeur kind of thing. Doesn't mean Redflex and their paid front group that sued the city on the first petition won't try something, but they have to abide by the terms of the contract as well.
Amazing, the city's own data shows accidents are up but they say the cameras work, I think I agree they do exactly what they are supposed to do, rake in money. Bax, Jack lied when he said the city didn't make any money about the cameras and he lied when he said that people can't vote on safety issues when he rejected the first petition, that was verified in the Houston camera case. He also lied when he said he would let the issue go to a vote, the city stopped the petition even though the charter said they had to put it on the ballot. What's next?
jasonbourneAhh so sweet i got teary eyed. You run into me, i gonna get violent with you.Imagine that!!!
Redlegs never quit.Hooah
I've been hit twice by Red Light runners. Once was a head on, the other hit my passenger door. Both were what I consider violent wrecks. Both of them were really nice people and extremely apologetic. Only one of them got a ticket.I asked the cop not to give them tickets.
I've been there, can talk on the subject and think the red light cameras stink to high heaven. Soooo too me it's all about the money.
Imagine that Raven8?
one more thing HeroI was hit head on by a Jack A### when he ran the red light. Sooooo to me, it's about safety. Now, if you haven't been there, then don't talk.
Carl9133Free country. i say what i want to say. The comment was about Port Lavaca not PL. Now.. the mayor said"They're serving their purpose. They've dropped violations. ... They've obviously proven that they work. I don't recommend them for all places, but we had special circumstances," Whitlow said.
You get it yet? They served their purpose and didn't recommended for all places. Just the problem areas. In Victoria, yea they voted it down because people will run the light and don't want to pay. Hey no Police around Heh Heh Heh.... no witness no ticket. I know that all to well 'cause i see it daily. Yea Yea Yea, what ever TxDot did they did. Not really my concern since i don't run red lights. If i don't want it done to me (accident), i won't do it or want too for that matter to someone else. Kind of a sense of responsiblity, you know, driving is a privledge, not a right. Oh yea i didn't come looking like a fool. I said what i said and that's that.Period Hero.
Well for starters Victoria isn't Port Lavaca and what problems you have in Vic with running stop signs isn't on topic with our problem. At least Victoria gave the citizens the choice of voting in the red light cameras or not and they chose not to. It's easy to claim " o just stop at the red and yellow light, it shouldn't be a problem." You probably don't even drive through PL and don't even know that txdot changed the yellow light timing and red light progressions which increase the likely-hood of accidents and so called red light running. I'm sure I'm going to get that one person that comments and says "i drive through PL weekly and I'm for the cameras" well that's fine but we are talking about the voter suppression and how the lights are not working by increasing accidents at these lights. At raven8 there was never a vote on letting the red light cameras in by the people of Port Lavaca. You need to get your facts right, when the city council votes in a for profit measure that benefits the local politicians then it has nothing to do with safety. When the Texas legislature started saying they were going to pull the money from the municipalities they started crying about loosing their greedy money program. So don't bother trying to say it has anything to do with safety, it had everything to do with profiting. Before running off at the mouth i would suggest you do a little research before you come off looking a fool :)
Geez! Stop on red and yellow, and you will not even know the cameras are there. Accidents will be less frequent and there will be less injuries and property damage. I tend to agree with raven8 as well. Red lights and stop signs are routinely ignored in Victoria, especially the left turn signals.
tickets are down = lights are working!
Sure they are making money. But residents did complain about the speeding and such so the majority of the residents WON. So quit complaining, The camera's are about safety and you got a make money somewhere to support city government. I paid my share in Germany lot's of time for ignoring the speed limit (and having my picture taking, yeh!!). Victoria should follow the example of Port Lavaca. Hell even the stop signs are being ignored here in town. Well Victoria? You have my vote in installing the camera's.
Attorneys / Lawyers stay the F*&!#$ out of it! Let the people vote.
BaxCato, Did you miss the part were as of Jan '09 to Feb '11 the net program receipts was $798,310.15 ??? I guess not cause you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to facts! I guess that goes to show how you have to be careful were you get your info from. If you want to say Jack isn't a liar then i will be the first to tell you he is a liar. He said he wanted to put this matter to a vote and lied about that as well! The cameras have nothing to do with safety that is a joke. If it had anything to do with safety they would have a red light camera up at Virginia and 35 were most of our fatalities have ac-cured. If you want to know the truth about anything i would suggest you look it up yourself. Maybe you should ask him why he doesn't come out an scream from the roof tops how good this program is? When the last channel 25 reporter tried to get a comment from the mayor, city councilmen, and the city attorney they were all in hiding! I guess they can hide behind words but not be seen on a camera standing up for these red light camera programs...lol
GOP, Did you miss the part where Port Lavaca Mayor Jack Whitlow said the cameras haven't made money for the city since the first six months they were installed? The cameras are a matter of safety, he said. I know Jack and Jack doesn't lie.
Not about money?