MONROE, WA) -- A campaign to convince Albuquerque, New Mexico voters to support those controversial red light ticketing cameras on the October 3rd ballot has been bankrolled by the same company that profits millions from the fines, a New Mexico TV station has discovered.It is the same red light camera company that Monroe’s city leaders signed a contract with for the cameras to be deployed on Monroe streets.KOB-TV Channel 4, New Mexico's first TV station discovered from campaign finance reports that Redflex, the company that operates the cameras, donated $45,000 to the initiative “Safe Roads Albuquerque.”Safe Roads Albuquerque recently mailed a flyer asking voters to support the red light cameras. The station reported that all but $50 donated to the campaign came from Redflex.This would appear to be consistent with what citizen activists in Monroe and other cities are saying: namely there is virtually no local grass roots support for the cameras, and whatever support there is for the cameras must be generated by city councils who are more interested in money than safety issues, they say, and the camera companies themselves.In every city in Washington State where voters have had a chance to express their opinion they have registered an overwhelming no vote on the cameras.Redflex took in $17.5 Million in the last five years from red light runners in Albuquerque, according to the KOB-TV report. MONROE SUES VOTERS OVER CITIZEN SPONSORED INITIATIVEIn Monroe, the mayor and city council decided to sue local voters who are opposed to the cameras, rather that let Monroe Initiative No. 1 be voted on by the public.The lawsuit asks a judge to find Monroe’s Initiative No. 1 invalid on grounds it is beyond the scope of what a local initiative can legally do.Defendants are Tim Eyman’s group, VotersWantMoreChoices, as well as the Monroe based Seeds of Liberty, BanCams.com and Washington Campaign for Liberty.On the Monroe council’s move to go to court rather than give voters a say on the cameras, local anti-camera activist Brian Kohn – a co-sponsor of Monroe Initiative No. 1 - said he was, “Disappointed to say the least. These individuals, the council and mayor of Monroe were elected to represent the citizens of Monroe. These very same citizens, over 1,000 registered voters, have demanded, and legally earned a binding up/down vote on automated ticketing cameras in Monroe. This mayor and council, to a person have instead chosen to listen to their attorneys and represent the Arizona red light ticketing company.””The initiative (Monroe Initiative No.1 ) isn't asking voters "are ticketing cameras good or bad," it's asking "who should decide: the people or the politicians?" The outpouring of support for Monroe Initiative No. 1 shows that the people want to be the decision-makers on ticketing cameras in Monroe,” said another anti-camera activist Tim Eyman.REDFLEX DOES NOT RESPOND TO QUESTIONS ABOUT FUNDING NEW MEXICO'S MEASUREKOB-TV in New Mexico tried to contact Redflex on the initiative funding story but did not get a response. The station also put a call into Safe Roads Albuquerque with no return call forthcoming and when a KOB-TV reporter e-mailed the organization, the message was returned back to sender.While Monroe city officials have decided to fight their own citizens in court over the camera vote issue, other cities around the country are getting rid of the controversial cameras or are in the process of getting rid of them.In August in Bellingham, The Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions (ATS), which supplies various cities with the red light ticket cams, was itself given a red stoplight by a Whatcom County Superior Court judge.Judge Steven Mura ruled that ATS should be denied a request to keep a citywide initiative off the Bellingham ballot because ATS had not demonstrated it would suffer immediate and irreparable injury if the initiative goes forward to the voters.The initiative, similar to two initiatives filed in Monroe, would restrict those red light cameras in Bellingham. ATS did not want voters to be able to vote on the issue.The Bellingham city council voted on July 11 to send the initiative to voters. The measure would require the removal of any red light cameras in the city and would also require voter approval of any plans to re-install them as well as limit the amount of fines the camera tickets can generate.City leaders in Los Angeles just got rid of their red light cameras after many citizen complaints and citizens refusing to pay the tickets generated by the cameras.In San Bernardino County, California the city council in Grand Terrace voted in July to issue a termination notice to Redflex. In March, the San Bernadino council voted to pay $110,000 to get out of its contract with ATS before the 2014 expiration date.Here in Monroe, anti-cameras forces accused Mayor Robert Zimmerman recently of sending in a political appointee “attack dog”, in the form of conservative former city councilman Chad Minnick, a Zimmerman supporter, to either deep six or water down an opposition argument to a measure the city council itself has on the upcoming ballot regarding the red light camera issue.An August 26 story on that in the Chronicle is located here MONROE LEADERS SPONSOR THEIR OWN RED LIGHT CAMERA BALLOT MEASUREIn response to angry citizens, the Monroe city council recently passed a resolution (Resolution No. 2011/019 ) that will be on the upcoming general ballot to ask voters what they think should be done with the cameras – not now, but in the year 2013.As far as is known, there appears to be no local voter demand for a measure that asks what to do about the cameras two years from now. The anti-camera forces point to that as one reason the city council came up with Resolution No. 2011/019 – to confuse voters since the council knew that the original Monroe Initiative No. 1 would be on the ballot.The language of the Monroe councils’ Resolution also contains a line that could be seen as inflaming the issue further.The resolution states that whereas the city’s camera program has generated a significant amount of public interest and commentary, it also adds the line that says “much of which has come from individuals and organizations outside of Monroe,” as if to signal to thye general public the anti-camera movement is as much, if not more, about outside agitators as any real opposition from city residents.The outside agitators angle has proven historically to be an often-effective governmental and corporate strategy to deflect attention and/or blame in controversial public uprisings, or to cast doubt on the validity of an opposing view held about a hotly contested public issue such as the red light cameras.The theme of outside agitators has been a long-standing theme in the South as it pertains to the civil rights struggle for at least the last 175 years, according to civilwartalk.com.In the decades prior to the Civil War, the term "outside agitators" more frequently referred to abolitionists; those who wanted to abolish slavery.During the civil rights movement and anti-Vietnam war protests government officials time and again pointed to “outside agitators” as the real reason for civil unrest about the unpopular war.A recent National Review Online editorial here argues that traffic cameras improperly presume guilt.“There are certain questions that are germane to establishing the severity of an offense: Was the accused keeping up with traffic? Were the roads wet? Was the speeder reacting to a dangerous or reckless driver?” the report says.
http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/FEATURE-NEWS/HOW-BADLY-DOES-MONROE-S-RED-LIGHT-CAMERA-COMPANY-WANT-THEIR-PRODUCTS-ON-CITY-STREETS-BR-It-is-willing-to-finance-citizen-voter-initiative-768256
No comments:
Post a Comment