Flipping-flopping the night away

Houston Mayor Annise Parker flipping and flopping about what to do with the red light cameras. 

First she cut them off. Then, faced with breach of contract, she turned them back on. Now, with an election approaching she's asking City Council to turn them off.

Classic politics, that is. If the city shuts them down and ends up writing a check to ATS, Mayor Parker can blame City Council. If the city leaves the cameras up and running, she can tell the voters that she wanted to turn them off but City Council wouldn't listen.

Come on, Mayor Parker, go down to the Medical Center and get a spine replacement. Try being a leader for once.

Mayor Parker to voters: "Screw you!"

In response to residents who voted to get rid of red light cameras, Houston Mayor Annise Parker announced that the cameras will being generating citations at 12:01am on Sunday. In doing so, Mayor Parker is giving residents the middle finger because she's more concerned about a contract with an out-of-state vendor than she is with the will of the voters in Houston.

It gets even worse, however. Police Chief Charles McClelland told the Houston Chronicle that the city would put up more cameras in the future. This despite a study showing that intersections with cameras saw an increase in the number of accidents after the cameras were installed.

Here's hoping that voters will remember how the mayor disregarded their decision on red light cameras come November.

Damn the public, full steam ahead!

So much for the will of the voters. Mayor Annise Parker has announced that the red light cameras are being turned back on.

Of course the mayor is wringing her hands because the public made its opinion of the cameras known and she certainly doesn't want to upset the very people she'll be asking to re-elect her in November. She seems quite upset about having to turn the cameras back on and she was very happy to let us know that the city is asking the court for permission to appeal its ruling on the legality of the referendum.

And we all know the city had nothing at all to do with ATS' claim that the referendum was not authorized by law. We know the city attorney would never have lain in bed with ATS to figure out a way to get around the vote.

This is nothing but a farce. They city never wanted to turn the cameras off in the first place. The entire federal lawsuit with ATS was nothing but a sham from the beginning. The legality of the referendum had nothing to do with whether the city was in breach of its contract.

Mayor Parker and her buddy, David Feldman, orchestrated this charade in order to defy the voters and still say the matter was out of their hands.

Let's just hope that in November voters in Houston are more concerned about what a candidate will do in office than with how many boxes he or she can check off on a census form.

Houston Motion to Certify Permissive Interlocutory Appeal

Odds and ends

Perry signs bill compensating Anthony Graves

Gov. Rick Perry signed a bill on Tuesday authorizing the state to pay Anthony Graves $1.4 million in compensation for spending 18 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. In 2006, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Mr. Graves' conviction. As there was no finding of actual innocence, the State Comptroller refused to compensate Mr. Graves for his years behind bars.

I guess, Ms. Combs, that it's somehow Mr. Graves' fault that he was arrested, charged and convicted despite the prosecutor's knowledge that the state's star witness recanted the night before trial.

God knows the state has more important things to spend money on -- such as the more than $10,000 a month the state is spending for the house the fair-haired one is renting while the Governor's Mansion is renovated.

Is ATS blackmailing the City of Houston?

ATS, the operator of the red light cameras in Houston, has issued a letter to the city saying that all will be forgiven if the city turns the cameras back on by August 1. If the city chooses to honor the will of the voters, the city may be on the hook for up to $20 million for breach of contract.

The city attorney, David Feldman, made the odd statement that statistics indicate an increase in accidents at intersections since the cameras were turned off after last November's referendum. Of course, Mr. Feldman has never let the facts get in the way of his pronouncements.

We're about to see where Mayor Annise Parker stands when she must decide between money and the will of the populace. I'm not holding my breath.

The return of the red light camera?

On Friday, US District Judge Lynn Hughes ruled that last November's ballot initiative to repeal Houston's red light camera ordinance was invalid.

The court held that the referendum was held after the time limit to repeal city ordinances had expired.

Mayor Annise Parker said she will consult with her lapdog, city attorney David Feldman, about the city's next move. With budget shortfalls to deal with, it's a pretty good bet that the city is going to do everything it can to get the cameras rolling once again.

“We lost on the issue of the validity of the charter amendment, so what the court is saying, okay city, now decide what you’re going to do with the contract. We need to decide how we’re going to move forward, and what position we’re going to take with the contract in light of the fact he’s declared the charter amendment invalid.’’ -- David Feldman

Judge Hughes' ruling does raise a question or two. First, if the ballot initiative was invalid because the time for repealing the ordinance had passed, why did election officials certify the initiative on the ballot?  If this is an argument the city is raising for the first time, why didn't city officials challenge the placement of the initiative on the ballot last November? Why was a federal court issuing a ruling regarding a city ordinance?

I understand why the matter was in federal court. ATS, the manufacturer of the red light camera system was suing the City of Houston for breach of contract over the city's cancellation of the contract as a result of the referendum. It would appear that there was never an adversarial relationship between the company and the city and that the purpose of the litigation was to void the result of the referendum.

The question still remains however? Why was Judge Hughes making a ruling about a local ballot initiative? The only question before the court was whether the city had breached its contract with ATS - not why the city cancelled the contract. The reason behind the city's decision had nothing to do with whether or not the city breached any contract.

Judge Hughes had no reason to enter any ruling regarding the ballot initiative. By doing so he involved himself in a dispute that is a local, not a federal, matter.

Accident rates decrease after red light cameras taken down

You'd never know it if you relied on the Houston Chronicle's website, but splashed on the front page of yesterday's paper was an article announcing that the removal of red light cameras has resulted in fewer traffic accidents at the 50 intersections where the cameras were mounted.

According to data released by HPD, the number of traffic accidents at those intersections has declined by 16% in the five months since voters rejected the cameras. The data compared the number of accidents in the five months prior to the removal of the cameras (June 15-Nov. 14, 2010) and the number of accidents between November 15, 2010 and April 16, 2011.

According to the Chronicle:

The drop in accidents surprised Houston police administrators who say a possible explanation is the unusually dry weather during recent months has made driving conditions safer. They also wonder if years of electronic monitoring have made Houstonians better, if not more cautious, drivers.

Maybe it never occurred to the police that accidents increased at the intersections due to the number of motorists slamming on their brakes as they approached yellow lights.

Assistant Chief Brian Lumpkin said he had assumed accidents at those intersections were increasing since HPD is still receiving raw data from the camera vendor indicating motorists were running lights with much greater frequency at many intersections. The HPD records show accidents decreased at 32 intersections, increased at 21 and stayed the same at 17.

Well, Mr. Lumpkin, the conclusion is quite obvious -- place officers near those intersections and stop motorists who run red lights. We all know the most popular pastime in Houston is seeing how many cars can get through an intersection when the light's yellow. We all know the number one rule of driving in Houston is you don't take off at the intersection when the light turns green - you wait for that one last car to go through the red light.

The other thing that Mr. Lumpkin's analysis doesn't take into account is the number of red light camera tickets that officers rejected upon review before issuing the civil citations. Estimates are that HPD monitors rejected almost 40% of the proposed violations.

On Nov. 14 soon after a referendum to shut down the system passed, the city stopped issuing violations but was ordered by the courts to keep the cameras and road sensors up. HPD took an immediate $10 million hit from the department's anticipated share of ticket revenue for the remainder of this fiscal year, as the city ended a lucrative system that issued nearly 800,000 tickets and collected almost $44 million in fines since going online in September 2006.

The red light camera scam was never about increasing safety on Houston's streets. It was always about increasing revenues without having to pay for officers to patrol the intersections. The latest data is pretty damning proof that the original premise behind the cameras was faulty.

Not so fast with that camera removal, boys

Oh, and you only thought the pesky little matter of the red light cameras in Houston was done with the city's decision to take them down.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes injected himself into the mix when he signed an injunction halting the removal of the cameras until the court rules on the validity of the referendum in which voters said no to the continued use of the cameras.

The litigation before the court seems to have little actual relevance as both the City of Houston (the plaintiff) and ATS (the defendant) are seeking to void the referendum.

The only real issue, it seems to me, is whether or not the city is in breach of its contract with ATS. If following the will of the populace means that the city is in breach of the contract, then shame on the people who obligated the city in the first place. If that be the case then Mayor Parker needs to negotiate a termination of the contract with ACS so that everyone can go about their merry way. Regardless of whether the vote means the city is in breach, the cameras need to come down.

Maybe the contract excuses noncompliance as the result of an Act of God. Since the GOP and their religious minions swept the day in Harris County, I think the city might just have an argument that its cancellation of the contract isn't a breach.

Taking the cameras down

City Hall has decided to listen to the voters. At 10:00 a.m. on Monday, November 15, 2010, the red light cameras will come down in Houston.

The City of Houston abruptly changed course from earlier pronouncements that it would take up to 120 days to cancel the contract and made the surprise announcement late Friday. ATS, the Arizona company hired by the city to install the cameras is looking for some type of a settlement with the city but activists who campaigned against the cameras are opposed to any type of settlement with the company.

Mayor Annise Parker has announced that removing the cameras will cost the Houston Police Department approximately $10 million annually -- pretty much an admission that the red light camera program was nothing more than a thinly veiled user tax for motorists who drive within the city limits.

Score one for the people.

The voters have spoken, but will the city listen?

Y'all just thought that voting against red light cameras in Houston would get rid of them, didn't you? Nevermind that 53% of the voters on Tuesday gave a thumbs-down to the city's latest user tax. Now city officials are doing whatever they can to keep the cameras up despite the vote.

Citing the cost of breaking the contract, Houston City Attorney Dave Feldman said the city first has to canvass the vote and then give notice to ATS, the Arizona company who runs the program. Mr. Feldman also said that the city must honor the 120-day termination notice in the contract before taking the cameras down in order to avoid termination fees and possible litigation.

Um, excuse me, arrogant city officials, the voters have spoken and the message was loud and clear: the cameras need to come down. As Houston ticket attorney Paul Kubosh noted, if the city can't afford the termination fee, then the people who signed the contract should be fired. Former city attorney Benjamin Hall said the city had no business keeping the cameras up since the voters made their preference known.

The red light cameras were a boondoggle from the beginning and will continue to be until city officials do what they've been told to do. Mr. Feldman and everyone else down at City Hall need to realize that they aren't the bosses -- they are the employees who serve at the will of the populace.

Mayor Parker, your bosses have spoken. Take the cameras down.

If at first you don't succeed, lie like a rug

If you're one of the thousands of scofflaws who received red light camera tickets from the City of Houston but haven't paid, you probably received a letter warning you that failure to pay the ticket could prevent you from renewing your vehicle registration.

The only problem is that Harris County has refused to cooperate with the city in withholding vehicle registrations over fears that county revenues may be affected if fewer motorists are able to renew their vehicle registration. Of course the Houston Police Department sees nothing wrong with the letters and deny that they are part of a scare campaign being waged by the city and ATS, Inc. out of Scottsdale, Arizona (the provider of the camera equipment).

"This is a State of Texas issue, and our agreement is with the state of Texas; it is their registration to issue and it is their registration to place a hold on. If Harris County chooses not to take action on that, that is their responsibility.“ -- Vicki King, Asst. HPD Chief

Is there any need for further evidence that the red light cameras are nothing more than a money grab by the city? They make the tickets a civil matter so that the city doesn't have to prove who was driving the car, municipal courts ignore the fact that ATS is providing security services without being licensed by the state and now the lying campaign has begun.

Oh what will they dream up next over at 1200 Travis?

As an aside, I'm one of those scofflaws and I did receive the letter in question -- the day after I walked into the county tax office on Pech Road and renewed the registration to my car.

Missouri court voids red light camera law

The Supreme Court of Missouri, in an en banc, decision, effectively voided red light camera tickets issued by any municipality when it ruled that the red light camera ordinance in Springfield violated state law by assigning a "hearing officer" to rule on municipal code violations.

Adolph Belt, a retired traffic officer, challenged a red light camera ticket he received. At his hearing he presented evidence that the yellow lights had been shortened and that this created a more dangerous intersection. He was, nonetheless, found liable and fined $100. Mr. Belt then appealed the case but his appeal was denied when circuit court found it Mr. Belt had no right to a trial de novo on the issue (the law had been written to disallow appeals from the administrative hearing.)

The court expressed its concern over limiting due process protections by classifying the offense as a civil matter, not a criminal matter.

"The administrative system at issue here is created for a violation of a red light ordinance, which typically is considered a moving violation." Missouri v. Belt, No. SC90324 (2010)

The state supreme court (click here for the opinion) found that state law dictates that a judge must hear cases involving municipal code violations - whether that be an associate circuit court judge, a municipal court judge or a county municipal court judge - except for cities with populations of more than 400,000 that are located in more than one county. Therefore, only Kansas City and St. Louis can create a process by which an administrative hearing officer presides over cases involving violations of a municipal code.

While the Transportation Code in Texas does allow such a procedure, I think it is problematic that Texas, like Missouri, has attempted to skirt due process issues by classifying a red light camera ticket as a civil violation rather than a criminal violation. Slighting due process concerns in the name of increasing revenue is just plain wrong.

Do as I say, not as I do

Hmmm.

It appears that the City of Houston is using a defense to toll tickets issued by the Harris County Toll Road Authority that doesn't fly for drivers who receive red light camera tickets.

Apparently the city owes the toll road authority $13,851 in unpaid tolls, fines and collection fees for 552 citations issued to 122 different city-owned vehicles. No wonder the county put the kibosh on the city's request to withhold automobile registrations for red light camera scofflaws.

Both the county and the city issue citations to the registered owner of the vehicle in question; for this reason the matters are strictly civil and are not included on a person's driving record. An employee of the city's finance department sent an e-mail to the Harris County Attorney's Office stating that the citations did not include photographs of the drivers of the city-owned cars and that the citations are the responsibility of the individual drivers and not the city.

Oops.

City loses bid to keep red light camera documents secret

Earlier this month, State District Judge Tracy Christopher ruled that the City of Houston cannot keep documents regarding the city's red light camera program secret. Following a lawsuit filed by Houston attorneys Randall Kallinen and Paul Kubosh regarding the city's refusal to release records documenting an increase in the number of accidents at intersections controlled by red light cameras, the judge ordered the city to release most of the requested documents.

The documents are to remain confidential, according to the order, pending an appeal by the city.

The documents were requested after it came to light that the Houston Police Department asked the authors of a city-commissioned study not to count accidents that occurred more than 100 feet from a monitored intersection or accidents at monitored intersections in which no red light camera citation was issued.

Harris County balks at Houston's plan to withhold registration from red light camera scofflaws

Harris County has told the City of Houston that they are opposed to the city's plan to withhold automobile registration for people who have outstanding red light camera tickets. County commissioners have described Houston's red light camera program as a money grab and are reluctant to do the city's bidding if it would result in the loss of county revenue.

“The downside is becoming a tool of the city for their incredible revenue grab. It's come to look like it's more of a revenue situation than trying to change people's behavior.” -- Steve Radack, Commissioner, Precinct 3

Harris County currently receives a third of the registration fee plus an additional 5% for county roads and bridges.

Since instituting the program in May 2006, the City of Houston has collected about $21.3 million from the cameras with approximately $16 million still uncollected. Red light camera tickets are civil violations that are fine only as the state would be unable to prove who was driving the car at the time it triggered the camera.

Could red light cameras be getting the red light?

The Texas House of Representatives passed a bill Monday that would ban the use of red light cameras (click here to read previous posts about red light cameras) in the Texas. In order to become law, the bill must pass the Senate and be signed by Gov. Rick Perry.

If passed, the changes would go into effect on September 1, 2009.

The legislation, H.B. 2639, would amend Section 543.2035 of the Texas Transportation Code to read:

A local authority may not implement or operate an automated traffic control system with respect to a highway or street under its jurisdiction...

"Automated traffic control system" refers to a system made up of photographic devices capable of recording images of a car's license plates if that car is not in compliance with a traffic control device.

According to the committee report, concerns were raised over whether these camera systems were installed by cities such as Houston to make the streets safer or to increase revenues. The bill's supporters also find it problematic that red light camera violations are treated as civil matters, therefor limiting a motorist's right to appeal.

Police attempt to manipulate study on red-light cameras

It turns out that the Houston Police Department tried to count accidents at camera-enforced intersections differently in order to skew the findings in a city-commissioned study on the use of red light cameras.  That study found an increase in the number of accidents at monitored intersections.

Dr. Robert Stein, of Rice University, one of the study's authors, acknowledged the cameras are not working as planned.

Why are these crashes going up at these intersections?  Nobody really cares to get at the truth here. Cars are being damaged, people are being injured and a handful of people are dying. … What I want to know is, why they aren’t working in Houston, and what we can do to improve them?

The police department asked Dr. Stein not to consider accidents that occurred more than 100 feet from a monitored intersection or accidents in which there was no red light violation. Why would the police make such "requests?"  It's simple...the city claims the red-light camera program was put in place to make the streets safer - but, from the beginning, critics have said the purpose of the program is to raise revenue for the city.

As I pointed out in a previous post, tickets from the red-light cameras are considered civil violations of a city ordinance and determined based upon a preponderance of the evidence while citations issued by a police officer are Class C misdemeanors and require the prosecutor to prove the violation beyond a reasonable doubt.

The designation as a civil violation also means the citizen accused does not have the right to confront his accuser as the only evidence presented is a photograph of the license plate and a conclusory affidavit.  So much for equal protection under the law.

Currently Houston attorneys Randall Kallinin and Paul Kubosh are involved in litigation to shut down the city's red-light camera program and end the money grab.

The truth about red-light cameras

So, according to today's Houston Chronicle, it appears that the introduction of red-light cameras in Houston has NOT reduced the number of accidents.  Despite a city-financed study showing the number of accidents at monitored intersections doubled in the first year after installation, Mayor Bill White (who has yet to meet a revenue-raising measure he didn't like) insists that the figures would have been worse but for the cameras.

The number of rear-end collisions increased from 55 to 90, the number of side collisions increased from 220 to 427 and the number of sideswipe collisions increased from 72 to 167 at the monitored intersections.  A Washington Post study showed that the number of accidents at monitored intersections in Washington, D.C., between 1999-2005, increased at a higher rate than at non-monitored intersections.

Apologists for the cameras claim that the increased number of accidents at those intersections are not due to the cameras but, instead, to the increased number of accidents in the city despite information from the Houston Police Department that the number of accidents in the city has decreased every year since 2004.

This latest data makes a very strong case for the camera opponents' assertion that the purpose of the cameras is increasing city revenues, not safety.  Since September 2006, more than 387,000 citations have been issued and the city has raked in over $20 million.

Supporters love the cameras because the $75 civil citations sent by mail to the registered owner of the car are virtually impossible to fight, as the burden has been shifted from the state to the citizen to prove he or she didn't run the light.  At unmonitored intersections, running a traffic light is a Class C misdemeanor meaning the burden is on the prosecution to prove the citizen ran the light.