Our Eyes up in Santa Fe tell us that Senate Bill 780 that requires the City to send $74 of every red light citation to the boys up in Santa Fe, has been sent to the Transportation Committee in the House with the express intent of killing it. Marty vowed to kill the program if it became law, so the Mayor and APD have been putting on a full court press to lobby legislators in an attempt to keep their precious Cash Cow Cameras. Their efforts seem to paying off.
Developing...
14 comments:
New Mexico State Senators and Representatives; Don't let Senate Bill 780 fail. Don't let this "Little Napolean" dictate policy to you. Step on him and put him back in his nasty little place. This City is counting on you guys. Liberate us from this Nazi regime.
The Citizens of Albuquerque
New Mexico Legislators Help!
We know what's going on up there, and you know what we're going through down here. Make that Senate Bill 780 happen.
Marty's popularity and public opinion is in the toilet. His arrogance is the worst ever. His shortcomings and upcomings are closer than he thinks. He's no different than that SOB Benito Mussolini, and remember what happened to him.
A South Valley WWII veteran
MayorMarty@Thief.com
Marty knows where a lot of bodies are buried, so he got some help up in Santa Fe to keep his cameras. That is how this place works. But as more and more politicos wise up and see how unpopular this is, they will turn on him like he was an injured shark in a feeding frenzy.
His political career is over.
Meanwhile, boycott Albq businesses whenever possible. Shop in Los Ranchos, on line, in Rio Rancho or inthe county. Keep GRT out of Marty's pockets.
Hooray fro Santa Fe. They don't need to get their grubby little fingers in our business. All they want is the GREEN. Viva la Red Light Cameras to catch all you distracted assholes who shouldn't be driving in the first place. WE need MORE cameras.
My, you're up early this morning, Mr. Mayor.
But seriously, real traffic fines from real citations where someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a real courtroom in the real justice system, where do you think those fines go? (It's Santa Fe).
The police department is not a money making operation. Public safety is not a money making scheme.
Actually, the bill in Santa Fe is out to expose Marty for the hypocrite that he is, so far he's cooperating nicely.
Quit blindly swallowing the PR BS from MC and either remember your civics lessons or learn some now. Start with separation of powers, due process and presumed innocent and stop being so distracted.
No one is saying speeding or running red lights is good, but the stench of the process that accompanies this ordinance makes the safety benefits unpalatable to many.
Here's hoping you catch every short yellow 40' out.
Taxation without representation? Civics lessons? Due process? The only taxpayers funding the Redlights are traffic scofflaws. Dumbass? Please spare me your haranguing and BS immaturity. If you want to engage in conversation on a topic, then learn the facts and stop believing myths and hoaxes and half-truths. Let's get one thing straight. You run the light, the officer certifies (issues) the offense, you have the right to appeal (due process) and take it to a hearing officer. You are in a no-win situation essentially, because you ran the light and the evidence supports it. Then instead of accepting responsibility for your actions, you make excuses for your self and try to exonerate yourself in some convoluted twisted logical nonsense. Good day, and please, don't let your APS education get in the way of truth and intellect. THE TRUTH
But surely Mr. Truth, you can't believe that the cameras are there for public safety?
It would seem logical that if that were the truth, as some have said, then there were be signs warning of the camera before the intersection....
Also, how do you explain the mayor's statement that if he, (the city) doesn't get to keep the revenue generated by these cameras, that he will shut the program down? If it were about public safety, and not revenue, there would be no question of the continuation of the program. Conversely, if the program is costing so much that it cannot be run without keeping ALL the revenue generated, why would the program have been implemented in the first place? Public safety? Ok, following that train of thought, why are the cameras not at the intersections that have the highest rate of accidents? Yes, there are some at those areas, but shouldn't that be the only areas that they are placed? My next question is that if the concern is public safety, why is there a 20-30 ring delay when you call the non emergency line? Why is there a recording for the 911 line that takes a large chunk of time to get through before it actually rings an operator? Why is there a delay in services sent out? Because there are calls holding because there is a shortage of cops, that's why. Also, because of the red light cameras, your ambulance service, rescue from AFD, fire services etc, all have to stop at the red light, wait for it to turn and then proceed. Your survival rate of a heart attack goes down minute by minute. So, tell me, what is more important for public safety?
Donnathedead
Hey Truthiness, getting things straight is welcome, that seems to be lacking. This is not meant to be insulting, but all I get from the argument of proponents is that (1) the safety benefits are so wonderful that we should pay no attention to the questionable basis and process that goes with this ordinance and (2) anyone who gets a notice of violation is a scumbag careless driver that obviously enjoys speeding and red-light running.
You at least address the process, and that's a good start; however, you paint a vanilla (and inaccurate) picture-
[Fact: Red light cameras and speed vans do not identify the driver.] As the owner, you can tattle on someone if you know who the driver was. But if you don't (or even if you do and the other person doesn't admit it), this ordinance does not care if you were driving or not. You get fined by virtue of being the registered owner. Please explain how this fits in with your ideas of justice. If the appropriate person gets punished 70%, 80%, 90% of the time, is that close enough for you?
[Fact: Alleged violators are not issued citations under NM traffic code.] Traffic citations are criminal misdemeanors issued to the driver. If contested, it's in Metro Court with the burden of proof on the prosecution. Typically, if the city tried these STOP cases in Metro court, they'd get dismissed due to lack of evidence (they don't ID the driver). When a traffic conviction in Metro court results in a fine, that money goes to the state. STOP ordinance fines go to the city and the contractor only.
[Fact: Under STOP ordinance, vehicle is declared a public nuisance] Therefore, the driver is neither a speeder nor a red-light runner. The actual driver may be totally uninvolved in the process that follows. The vehicle is a public nuisance by decree of the city council, (though this does not seem to comply with the definition of a public nuisance in NM state law). This includes city vehicles, busses, trash trucks, police cars, etc. Public nuisances. Really? Smells fishy to me. (cont. next comment...)
(Hey Truthiness, cont.)
Here's why: this same scheme has appeared in a variety of cities across the country. In each instance, it's one of two contractors (in our case, Redflex) that gets to supply the cameras and logistics support. I don't think our council thought this up out of nowhere. This same "scheme" has been discontinued in Virginia, ruled illegal in North Carolina, Iowa, Michigan and is before the State Supreme Court in Ohio. California uses it in compliance with their motor vehicle laws and identifies both vehicle and driver, I wouldn't have a major problem if we did that here.
[Fact: Alleged violators can request a hearing.] You go to a city office that has no vehicle licensing or registration authority to determine if your vehicle is a public nuisance subject to fine and possible seizure. The Administrative Officer is an employee (or contractor) of city government. Not independent, not a judge in court , not immune to pressure or influence from within City Hall (see Show Trial in this blog, it's true). In a civil proceeding, evidence and proof standards are substantially lowered. I totally agree with your statement, "You are in a no-win situation..." but probably for different reasons than you meant.
We have to take this ordinance as a whole bite right now. To me, this ordinance has a vile core process wrapped in a sweet, tasty safety coating. I admit, I too like the taste of the outer layer and I get the safety arguments, I really do, but what's inside makes me want to puke.
We (as a city) may be able to make it better, but I suspect if the profit motive is taken away, Marty and Co. won't have a taste for safety alone. We'll see...
We couldn't have said it better ourselves.
Am I the only who knew that Mayor Marty is the only person who wrote in in support here. He is the sixth one up. You can tell by his manners.
Didn't know ***holes had manners.
Post a Comment