Ok... so the word is out. We hate these scam-eras and their attendant Marty-roo courts. We told you in our last post that the 5th floor and the Almighty Alcalde's loyalists are burning up the phones trying to get folks like you to contact their councilor and tell them to keep the scam going.
If you hate these things because their unjust, unfair, unscrupulous, or just plain annoying, Councilor Winter has provided you with an opportunity to put a stop to the scam-era madness (at least temporarily). We'd suggest that you contact the entire council via phone or email and let them know that you want this program to be put on ice at least until Marty's Task Farce delivers its report.
You can reach the council by phone at 768-3100. Each councilor's email is listed below. It should be a fun meeting for the two new additions to the council who will attend their first council fracas Monday night!
District 1 - Ken Sanchez - ksanchez@cabq.gov
District 2 - Debbie O'Malley - domalley@cabq.gov
District 3 - Isaac Benton - ibenton@cabq.gov
District 4 - Brad Winter - bwinter@cabq.gov
District 5 - Michael Cadigan - mcadigan@cabq.gov
District 6 - Rey Garduno - rgarduno@cabq.gov
District 7 - Sally Mayer - smayer@cabq.gov
District 8 - Trudy Jones - tjones@cabq.gov
District 9 - Don Harris - dharris@cabq.gov
31 comments:
Way to go 'Eye' . I'm passing this information to all the people who hate this program and hate this City's Administration, which by the way is EVERYBODY I know.
Get out the word. E-mail, call, go to City Council monday night.
Fight back and join Councilor Winter in this fight.
City Councilors; get on board with this. Defeat this sham or you'll be accused of being part of Marty's theivery.
This is a REVOLT!
And way over due.
LET'S ROLL !!!
Any Councilor who doesn't vote for this moratorium will be condemmed by their constituents as well as the rest of the city.
Let's face it, the people are speaking and we, the majority, don't want these cameras anymore.
Haven't these guys ripped us off enough?
Take a hint already. You cannot steal anymore. Your buying your kid's Christmas gifts with money that would have gone to our kids gifts. Kickbacks and under the table money make me sick.
Can't you live on the salaries you guys make. Your all despicable.
Way to go eye! Lets rock people, and put and end to this corrupt city.
What has happened to Jim V and KKOB on the red light issue? Nothing is on Jim's program and very little on the news.
Jim's decision or a station (mayor) decision?
The mayor is on the air and the city buys advertising (not PSA's)
from KKOB.
Jim V. has a new cause...he bought a new house outside the city limits and got a doubling of the property taxes in one year. He probably doesn't even have to go through any of The Alcalde's moneymakers, but the tax bill jolted him into crusading for property tax reform. But as any longtime listener knows, Jim's attention span won't allow him to focus on more than one thing at a time. So we're on our own to get out the word to the public to fight the scam-eras. And it probably doesn't hurt that CABQ spends money at KKOB.
I called my Councilor & they told me they supported the cameras...
Does anyone have a good recipe for oatmeal cookies that I can use for the Holidays? Please post, Thanks.
This whole thing is so typical New Mexico: breaking the law is an entitlement and no one should be held accountable... The two major premises of life here. GROW UP - pay your fines and quit bitching about getting punished for your own stupid mistakes...
True about the NM entitlement attitude however I for one did get nailed for what was proven to be only 4 MPH over the limit. No flesh and blood cop would write that because we were taught that things like tire & wheel sizes and other issues in the vehicle can cause a plus or minus factor of error of 3 MPH on odometers. In my case the van had been set out in what he thought was a 40MPH zone on coors when in fact it appears to be a 45 MPH zone. And yes I paid it cause' I aint entitled to much in this state cept' poor leadership
"breaking the law is an entitlement"
OK genius, let's go-
exactly, and I mean exactly- which laws get broken?
If you can answer that (and I'd bet big you can't)- then please explain where proper jurisdiction lies. Base your answers on New Mexico law since you're so freakin indignant about laws getting broken.
Your turn-
Yeah good comment - also where do we get to cite "criminally" for a offense not in our presence? WE DONT, which is why this is a civil action and totally WRONG!
Put Cops back in charge of enforcing the laws and put cameras back doing what they do best, making internet porn for you to download.
Nothing about the camera system prevents you from writing a red light violation & sending the driver to Metro Court.....Have at it. When was the last time you wrote a red light violation? Let's see if you are just blowing smoke or just lazy.....
Hi,
I know you're not the one my comment above is aimed for (they won't respond intelligently)- but I do want an intelligent discussion on this. I think it's complicated, which is why I immediately believe anyone who says it's simple doesn't have a clue. Once again, I believe it's "sleight of hand" on the part of the city to keep people confused.
In most cases, you would not be able to issue a traffic citation (a criminal citation, as cops know, but others might not) for a traffic offense you did not witness- EXCEPT, you can after conducting an accident investigation, right?
But in any case, jurisdiction for traffic citations is Metro court.
So specifically, a STOP notice is not charging anyone with a traffic offense, right? So what is it?
As to "which is why this is a civil action"
read NMSA 34-8A-3(A)(1) and (2).
If it's a civil action, per state law, jurisdiction is: Metro court.
I totally agree with your last sentence- too funny.
Anyone care to venture a specific charge and legal (per NM law) jurisdiction?
"Nothing about the camera system prevents you from writing a red light violation & sending the driver to Metro Court.....Have at it. When was the last time you wrote a red light violation? Let's see if you are just blowing smoke or just lazy....."
No one is saying it does, if a uniformed cop on duty witnesses the violation.
What's your point?
My point is that these red light violations captured by a camera are violations that would not have been captured by a live cop. So what's the problem? If you want to issue cites for red lights, go sandbag an intersection & issue a few cites and take the drivers to metro court. But you do realize that once you do that you take yourself out of service and can't respond to calls. The bottom line is.... there aren't enough cops on the streets, they can't park themselves at intersections to catch red light runners so let the cameras help you. They serve as a deterrent, cause people to change their driving habits and finally, the cams issue a citation to a red light runner that otherwise would not have been written....
"My point is that these red light violations captured by a camera are..."
So you're saying the notices are issued for traffic violations. (they're not, by the way)
And the end justifies the means.
And it's really time consuming and a lot of trouble to actually do things in accordance with the law.
And we should do anything we can in this city to capture any and every illegal act- even if the way it's gone about isn't in accordance with the law and even if the perpetrator isn't necessarily the one punished?
So what's the problem, you ask?
Seriously!!??
In a weird way- we're actually not that far apart, though. I know where you're coming from, but I guarantee the devil of this thing is in its details.
All of my problems with this are in the half-assed way it's put together. It's not written with NM law in mind. It seems to have been written specifically to allow the city and the contractor to keep the money- yes, I think it's all about the money from the fines.
I'd be OK with it if we did traffic cams the way California does (except not the astronomical fines there)- ID driver and vehicle, treat it as a traffic citation and put it in the same court as other traffic offenses. There's a couple of hurdles in NM law to get there, but if those were taken care of, I wouldn't have a major problem. The way it is now, I do.
BTW, the first part of this was not meant to be a slam, just to disagree and make my point.
Regards
They are violations, violations of city law enacted by council. The City has home rule authority and can enact it's own laws & rules which is what they did in this case. As far as the money goes, it's no different that any other court. The fine is supposed to be painful, it's a form of punishment. Hopefully, painful enough that the violator won't do it again....So, you see it's still pretty simple..
It's not so simple. Where else in the country is a traffic violation presumed to be a nuisance? The answer is nowhere. And when the nuisance presumption is challenged, how does the City/APD "prove" there's a nuisance? The answer is it doesn't. The best it can prove is there was a traffic code violation. But this isn't a Traffic Code issue, because that would be criminal, with jurisdiction in Metro Court. And this is "civil" with no recourse but Marty's Court.
I share the concern "with the half-assed way it's put together." STOP is a legal abomination; it should be stopped and then Albuquerque could figure out if it really wants automated traffic enforcement and go about it legally.
"They are violations, violations of city law enacted by council."
Ok, we have another contestant.
The city does have municipal home rule, but ordinances must not be inconsistent or conflict with state law.
So the question remains: Specifically, what is someone who receives a notice of violation of the STOP ordinance being charged with? HINT: This is not like "who is buried in Grant's tomb", so we're not looking for "the STOP ordinance" as the answer, but that would be simple.
"As far as the money goes, it's no different that any other court."
What?
"The fine is supposed to be painful"
Not relevant.
Once again we're looking for:
Specifically, what is someone who receives a notice of violation of the STOP ordinance being charged with?
ANON gets us a lot closer.
The city, per state law, can define a public nuisance, so they could very well be able to prove one.
I believe the notice has something to do with a public nuisance, but what exactly?
It's not so simple.
1. Nothing
2. Being the owner of a vehicle that a camera says broke a traffic law
3. Being a public nuisance that must be abated because Marty wants the money
4. All of the above
And what's really offensive is that the City/Redflex informs the recipients of violation notices that:
"Failure to pay this fine on time will lead to serious legal consequences including the loss of your vehicle and the assessment of additional fines and monies due."
This is all screwed up.
ANON-
Nice.
Personally, I'd take 2 and 3, but I sure can't argue with 1 also.
2. Being the owner of a vehicle that a camera says broke a traffic law
Bingo.
You are accused of "knowingly maintaining" a public nuisance, in essence.
Here's the catch: this is defined under the CRIMINAL code
Can they prove knowledge: No
Jurisdiction: Metro Court
Does STOP conflict w/ state law: Yes
3. Being a public nuisance that must be abated because Marty wants the money
Being a public nuisance: STOP gets cloudy here, I don't think STOP alledges that, but if it did, that's a criminal misdemeanor where they couldn't typically prove the perpetrator in Metro court jurisdiction with the evidence gathered.
Abating a public nuisance:
STOP claims to abate public nuisances, but compare the abatement actions in STOP with those of "abatement of a house of prostitution", where there has to be multiple convictions to establish the presumption and established knowledge on the part of the owner. You seem to have more legal protection if you run a whore house than a red-light.
Jurisdiction: District Court
Conflict w/ NM law: I believe so, simply over jurisdiction, but lack of ANY other conviction that necessitates abatement is a good argument too.
Notice in no instance is the proper jurisdiction the City's hearing offices. They cannot legally establish jurisdiction, which is the first thing any self-respecting court or venue would do. Which is why I agree with your answer 1. Nothing. The hearing is a great big, giant puffed up bluff.
At different times, the exact charge seems to shift. The hearing officers never admit they don't have jurisdiction, but they can't establish it based on any single charge either.
Thanks to all for playing.
Nice work ANON, I owe you a beer.
You guys are all smoke & mirrors. The STOP Ord. was enacted by the Legislative body of the City, so it is our law. The violations are just like code violations, business violations. The hearing officers have always heard these type of cases, long before the cams showed up or the stop ordinance existed. The proof is in the photos and the video, the hearing officers hear both sides of the issue and renders a decision. They are all licensed attorneys and officers of the court. Still seems pretty simple, don't want to have to attend a hearing or pay a fine? Don't run the red lights...
True, hearing officers have existed to enforce matters under the regulatory purview of the city.
Building codes, health codes, business licensing are all under the city's purview.
Vehicles do not fit that category. The city does not license nor regulate them, that's the state.
You have a very loose interpretation of municipal home rule. Do you really believe it was written to allow municipal ordinances to conflict with state law?
The STOP ordinance is a municipal ordinance.
Please explain why you believe it's exempt from NMSA 34-8A-3.
"The proof is in the photos and the video"
Of what- exactly.
Please explain your version of what someone is charged with and how the city has authority to adjudicate.
Smoke and mirrors is exactly what I perceive coming from your direction. I'm backing up my assertions by citing state law.
Post a Comment