Jump to content

Red light cameras to face a vote!


IronTiger

Recommended Posts

Before voting, shouldn't we determine first whether officers on every street corner will increase different types of accidents or not?

It is a proven fact the mere presence of a Police car causes people to drive safer, no one ever said put one on each street corner, there aren't enough Police to do the job in Houston and haven't been for decades. You now have that rent a cop mentality with less than qualified people riding around in cars they purchased themselves, everything was purchased themselves. I don't know but that don't sound like a very good police force yet just another way to not use tax money to provide a good force. The crime rates in Houston will continue to go up because of many different reasons, one being the forcible relocation of thugs moving from shall we say less favorable neighborhoods, to areas that in the past were basically more secure. All this blending of culture has cut a jugular, just look at Washington Ave with the new condos going up all around and then take a look at the mix on the street!.. All these things I suppose are growing pains of the new society, and that is exactly what it is, there's just not a whole lot of options out there because of the large population and everyone is competing for the same space. Unfortunately the thugs will always be around!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a proven fact the mere presence of a Police car causes people to drive safer

When/where was the fact proven? Red light cameras have been shown to increase rear-end accidents. Does a police presence do this as well?

The crime rates in Houston will continue to go up because of many different reasons, one being the forcible relocation of thugs moving from shall we say less favorable neighborhoods, to areas that in the past were basically more secure.

Why would Houston crime rates go up because thugs, as you call them, move from one part of the city to another? Were they not committing crimes in their old neighborhood or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted to keep the cameras for completely selfish reasons. I was T-Boned by a red light runner at the intersection of Woodway and Voss. Witnesses said the woman swerved around a car stopping for the light infront of her to run the red light in the empty lane to her left. She T-Boned me right on the driver's side door. Paramedics and firefighters on the scene had to use the jaws of life to get me out of the car. The car was trashed. She hit me so hard that the wheels on my car caved UNDER my vehicle. If my car didn't have a steel casing, I was told that I likely wouldn't have survived the crash. I ended up with broken ribs, a broken right hand, 3 broken fingers (caused by me grabbing the steering wheel in panic when I saw what was coming), and numerous cuts and bruises. I was in pain for 3 months and couldn't do any of my normal activities which included my day job.

So, here's my big F-U shoutout to all those opposed to this measure.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When/where was the fact proven? Red light cameras have been shown to increase rear-end accidents. Does a police presence do this as well?

Why would Houston crime rates go up because thugs, as you call them, move from one part of the city to another? Were they not committing crimes in their old neighborhood or something?

The crime rates go up in areas that had less crime, because the thugs are being forced to relocate. In the past high crime areas were in specific neighborhoods where average people would never venture into, the city is now wide open and those neighborhoods have been slowly absorbed, the thugs as I call them, have to move, so does the crime. I'm also sure in the past people that didn't live in those neighborhoods could have cared less whether crime was rampant there, as long as they were in their own hood! All this development going on in Houston comes with a price, and now you see all of it, traffic, crime, a few other things I would guess. You can't stop it or turn it off because you don't like it, you could move to the country like I did.

As for the rear ending, the person who did the rear end is the person responsible, not the one in front, that's the law! Get off his tail and you won't rear end him, period!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted to keep the cameras for completely selfish reasons...

So, here's my big F-U shoutout to all those opposed to this measure.

I don't see it as a selfish reason, but rather you know what kind of damage a T-bone accident can do and you would hope that other purple would have a lower chance to experience one like you did.

Of which I can relate and understand. Some purple don't get it until they go through the same trauma.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am asking what will be the effect of posting these officers, not who will be responsible.

I think the presence of more Police patrols have a positive impact on how people conduct their driving, there isn't enough out there to handle the heavy traffic Houston now has. Somewhere I already posted that in 1970 or 71 Houston had about 8 cars patrolling the entire city!, that came from an officers mouth while he was investigating a nice wreck I was involved in going around the circle there at Montrose and Main. Some would argue the complete opposite, example is California, their State Police do not drive the interstates at peak hours because it slows traffic, go figure! You can drive a very long time in Houston North, South, East or West and you will be hard pressed to see a police car anywhere, lot's of idiots passing you at 100 mph on the freeways of course. I just don't like the idea of cameras watching every move we make, we're not robots and already responsible for what we do and were rewarded for it when they gave us the license, we don't need intrusion, it was an attempt to make money and for no other reason. They can twist it spin it or whatever it is they do with, it is an intrusion on your rights and if you continue conceding them a day will come when you have NONE! City workers are basically lazy, and the more they shift their responsibilities to cameras, or any other means the better or softer their jobs, and more money for raises.

The last sentence is tongue in cheek of course, not all of them are lazy :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I curbed my tongue last week at the comments on this thread, but now that the cameras are going to be history, I'll be candid. As someone who actually likes to drive, considers a driver's license a privilege not a right, and has been to numerous driving schools over the years to improve my skills set, I'm very happy about this. The automotive press has called the advent of redlight and speed cameras as a money snatch since day one. The first words out of the City of Houston's spokesman today in the paper was "How are we going to make up for the revenue we've lost, furloughs and program cuts are going to become reality." Not one word about public safety, since it never was about that anyway. I don't run red lights, but many studies have shown that RLC's don't stop people from running the lights, and there's enough evidence that they can cause increases in accidents at those intersections. Further evidence that it's all about the money is the fact that the RLC operators have almost always filed suit to stop public referendums in places they have contracts. Here's an interesting article about yesterday's referendums around the country:

11/3/2010

Red Light Cameras Routed at Ballot Box

In fifteen public votes, automated ticketing machines have never survived.

Houston anti-camera protest The public rejected the use of photo enforcement in five more municipal referendum elections Tuesday. America's fourth-largest city, Houston, Texas, was home to the most hotly contested vote. The group Citizens Against Red Light Cameras, run by brothers Paul and Randy Kubosh, gathered enough signatures to force the issue onto the ballot against the wishes of the city council and in spite of a legal attack from camera operator American Traffic Solutions (ATS).

Outspent by a factor of ten to one, the group nonetheless won a majority of the 335,778 votes cast on the measure. According to campaign finance disclosure documents, ATS poured $1,746,000 into the race, in a desperate attempt to salvage one of the company's most important accounts.

"Despite the opposition having every conceivable advantage the people saw through the hype and the emotional blackmail and saw the cameras for what they are, a money making scheme that violates our constitutional rights and risks driver safety for money," Citizens Against Red Light Camera spokesman Philip Owens told TheNewspaper.

Another ATS account was canceled by citizens in nearby Baytown, where 58 percent voted to terminate the red light camera program.

"Despite being far outspent, sued and harassed we ultimately prevailed because the truth was on our side," initiative sponsor Byron Schirmbeck said in a statement. "We are hopeful that the legislature will take up a statewide camera ban this next session so citizens won't have to rip the cameras out city by city. We also urge the Baytown council to abide by the will of the people, no matter what the outcome of any future lawsuits by the camera company they partnered with... The people have spoken, bring the cameras down."

On the west coast, the vote in Mukilteo, Washington was 70 percent against the automated ticketing machines. Tax-cutting initiative guru Tim Eyman organized the effort which earned a state supreme court order denying the attempt of ATS to block the people from voting. In Anaheim, California there was no camera vendor defending the program because the mayor and city council decided on their own to add a charter amendment prohibiting the use of red light cameras. The measure passed handily with 73 percent of the 45,000 votes cast.

"I am pleased with the outcome of today's red light camera ballot issue," Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle said in a statement. "Anaheim's voters recognized that red-light cameras are not a proven deterrent to traffic violations or traffic accidents, and I happen to agree with that assessment. Other cities have chosen to use red-light cameras as revenue producing tool, but the city council disagreed so we (city council) took the vote to the people, and they have spoken."

Garfield Heights became the fifth Ohio city to ban red light cameras and speed cameras, with a majority of the 9,194 votes cast insisting on the termination of all automated ticketing.

Earlier this year, 61 percent of Sykesville, Maryland voters overturned a speed camera ordinance. In 2009, eighty-six percent of Sulphur, Louisiana rejected speed cameras. The November elections included three votes: 72 percent said no in Chillicothe, Ohio; Heath, Ohio and College Station, Texas also rejected cameras. In 2008, residents in Cincinnati, Ohio rejected red light cameras. Seventy-six percent of Steubenville, Ohio voters rejected photo radar in 2006. In the mid-1990s, speed cameras lost by a two-to-one margin in Peoria, Arizona and Batavia, Illinois. In 1997, voters in Anchorage, Alaska banned cameras even after the local authorities had removed them. In 2003, 64 percent of voters in Arlington, Texas voted down "traffic management cameras" that opponents at the time said could be converted into ticketing cameras. Photo enforcement has never survived a public vote. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3311.asp

If you still think they're a good thing, I can't change your mind, but I'd say it's yet another lesson for our city government to learn...don't start programs that you have to "create funding" for later to support.

I don't find the statements by the anti-camera crowd to be any more truthful that the statements by the camera corporations. Frankly, in Houston, one group who was losing money on the camera tickets, traffic ticket lawyer Paul Kubosh and his bail bondsman brother, collected signatures from their former clients to fight aanother group who was making money on the cameras. There is nothing unconstitutional with using cameras to photograph law breakers on public streets. Virtually every police department in the area (other than HPD) uses dashboard cams to video drunk drivers and other law breaking motorists, every public facility uses cameras for security, and guess what, every criminal who pleads guilty to a crime is assessed a fine and court costs as part of his sentence. Why SHOULDN'T law breakers help pay for the cost of enforcing the law?

However, despite the misleading statements on both sides of this issue, the voters have spoken. As a Houston resident, I will pay my share of the increased property taxes needed to replace the revenue lost from the cameras, and to hire more police to patrol the intersections formerly watched by the cameras. I will also pay extra attention at intersections, since despite the cameras, Houston and Harris County remain one of the deadliest driving cities in the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone investigate the difference in the number of side-on collisions after the introduction of cameras? Rear-enders generally involve little more than squabbling insurance adjusters and suspect whiplash claims. Side on collisions are at best life-changing, at worst life-ending. I'd lose little sleep over a few more rear enders if the number of side-impact collisions was reduced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would a traffic lawyer be losing money on people being cited for red light running? Isn't that just more business opportunities?

I'm sure the Judge didn't waste much time deciding innocent or guilty having looked at the tape, one thing a lawyer don't want is a video of a client committing a crime. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just one more point and I'll shut up. If red light cameras really worked, i.e. made people stop running them, then after only a short period of time we could just take them down, as there would be no need/revenue since everyone is stopping now. Obviously that's not the case. If there was no ongoing revenue from the runners, there would be no incentive for the contractor/city to keep them. Bad drivers, or good drivers making poor decisions will always do stupid things, you can't make that stop either with cameras or more police presence.

KinkaidAlum, I feel your pain. I've got a titanium rod in my leg from when the woman turned in front of me while riding my bicycle almost six years ago. I couldn't bear any weight for 4 months. She made a bad decision and no amount of additional laws could have stopped her. It didn't make me stop riding or give up on the human race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Red light tickets don't go on your driving record so there is no incentive to fight it. The value of a traffic lawyer is keeping moving violations off your record

It's just the red light cameras that don't go on your record, right? A cop-issued red light ticket is still a moving violation, right? I don't see where this is cutting into the business of the traffic lawyer. He can continue to defend he-said cop-said red light tickets, right? The only way I see to reconcile that is if cops are writing fewer red light tickets because of the cameras, which I doubt is happening.

Edited by kylejack
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just one more point and I'll shut up. If red light cameras really worked, i.e. made people stop running them, then after only a short period of time we could just take them down, as there would be no need/revenue since everyone is stopping now. Obviously that's not the case. If there was no ongoing revenue from the runners, there would be no incentive for the contractor/city to keep them. Bad drivers, or good drivers making poor decisions will always do stupid things, you can't make that stop either with cameras or more police presence.

KinkaidAlum, I feel your pain. I've got a titanium rod in my leg from when the woman turned in front of me while riding my bicycle almost six years ago. I couldn't bear any weight for 4 months. She made a bad decision and no amount of additional laws could have stopped her. It didn't make me stop riding or give up on the human race.

You only correct your behavior after it is in your best interest to and after you're caught. There are those that take longer to learn than others. Considering the size of the city, you can't expect every single person to know when to take a hint.

Your leg is a prime example of that. She was probably careless before she hit you and odds are is still careless in her turns now.

The same example can be made of people at some of the speed traps around town. The cops frequent these areas, people KNOW they're there, but yet people speed down that street to get caught because they decided that they feel the need to speed.

It's just the red light cameras that don't go on your record, right? A cop-issued red light ticket is still a moving violation, right? I don't see where this is cutting into the business of the traffic lawyer. He can continue to defend he-said cop-said red light tickets, right? The only way I see to reconcile that is if cops are writing fewer red light tickets because of the cameras, which I doubt is happening.

Would you feel better if a red light camera violation went on your record?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feel better? No. RedScare impugned the motives of the traffic lawyer backing this and I'm questioning whether that's a credible objection or not.

Well, since he's a friend of mine, I feel that I can impugn him with impunity. Paul also gained immeasurable publicity fighting the cameras virtually since the first day that they were installed. It was a great move on his part, especially now that he can brag about his success. And, to be sure, I don't doubt his (and apparently your) queaziness about increased use of cameras and video by government for any reason. I am not crazy about it either. I am simply pointing out that much...or most...of the arguments on the anti-camera side is overstated or false. The "emotional appeal" in this debate was actually used to defeat the cameras, not support them.

However, if you'd rather ignore the unstated motives of Paul and others, I neither care nor am I offended. I just happen to know a little behind the scenes info on the matter, and shared it. Feel free to ignore it.

Edited by RedScare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, since he's a friend of mine, I feel that I can impugn him with impunity. Paul also gained immeasurable publicity fighting the cameras virtually since the first day that they were installed. It was a great move on his part, especially now that he can brag about his success.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

Anyway, it seems like the public just doesn't like them. Apparently they have never survived 15 different votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted to keep the cameras for completely selfish reasons. I was T-Boned by a red light runner at the intersection of Woodway and Voss. Witnesses said the woman swerved around a car stopping for the light infront of her to run the red light in the empty lane to her left. She T-Boned me right on the driver's side door. Paramedics and firefighters on the scene had to use the jaws of life to get me out of the car. The car was trashed. She hit me so hard that the wheels on my car caved UNDER my vehicle. If my car didn't have a steel casing, I was told that I likely wouldn't have survived the crash. I ended up with broken ribs, a broken right hand, 3 broken fingers (caused by me grabbing the steering wheel in panic when I saw what was coming), and numerous cuts and bruises. I was in pain for 3 months and couldn't do any of my normal activities which included my day job.

So, here's my big F-U shoutout to all those opposed to this measure.

The ignoramuses who voted against the RLC will never understand. All they "know" is that it's some kind of money-making scheme/conspiracy by the govment to take your money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first responses here after the election results by Sidegate, and LTAWACS bemoaned the lost revenue.

Chronicle articles since the elections have primarily been about lost revenue.

Mayor Parker's first quotes afterward were concerning the potential million $ budget gap and potential layoffs..

To me, that just shows what this was all about.. The whole safety plea was a sidenote and used to charge the debate with emotion.

I have nothing against increased safety measures, but it does seem like that debate as to the effectiveness is still going on and it most certainly seems like safety was not the primary reason these cameras were installed.

I understand cities need revenue, and I wouldnt, like many, even call this a tax. It's much more selectively applied and is a fine, no different than a speeding ticket.... I just don't like the idea of being caught breaking the law by a machine. I don't necessarily have a problem with big brother in the general surveillance sense, but I certainly do have a problem with an eye in the sky fining me for every minimal infraction. Whats next? The HCTRA and TRANSTAR tag readers that line every freeway in Houston to give us live traffic speeds being adapted to record speed and issue fines for every car that passes under ?? F that !! You're only breaking the law if you get caught... by a human.

I do feel bad for people on here that have been involved in Tbone accidents due to red light runners. But that doesn't justify a solution of installing red light cameras everywhere.

I was in a head-on collision with a drunk driver at 18. That doesnt justify a solution where all cars ignitions are hooked up to breathalyzers. The "solution" in both cases are just too far, too much. And when it comes out that the "safety solution" was by far a secondary reason to be as compared to the potential revenue stream. Screw that.. Glad they're gone.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

Anyway, it seems like the public just doesn't like them. Apparently they have never survived 15 different votes.

[/quote

Which is why I hate the fact that we vote on EVERYTHING now. If we acted in the past like we do now, our country likely would have never progressed. Think God things like Women's Suffrage and the Civil Rights Act weren't on the ballot for John Q. Public to decide.

Some things are better left to the discretion of the judicial system. This would have been one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're gone for now but the split of the vote indicates they are in a position to make a comeback in the future....

Was it under Bill Whites reign that these cameras were installed? I was only home 2005 to 2008 so I can't remember, but apparently if it was done under his watch then looking at his bid for governor he is not well liked. That incident with his daughter's driving dui had more to do with my disliking him, your only guilty if your old man ain't the mayor, and somehow got turned around to where it was the police officers fault! Sorry that's a bit too much for me to choke down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was it under Bill Whites reign that these cameras were installed? I was only home 2005 to 2008 so I can't remember, but apparently if it was done under his watch then looking at his bid for governor he is not well liked. That incident with his daughter's driving dui had more to do with my disliking him, your only guilty if your old man ain't the mayor, and somehow got turned around to where it was the police officers fault! Sorry that's a bit too much for me to choke down.

How on earth do you extrapolate a vote in Houston to a vote across Texas? I'd say he did pretty friggin' well to get the percentage he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How on earth do you extrapolate a vote in Houston to a vote across Texas? I'd say he did pretty friggin' well to get the percentage he did.

I would say he still lost! You know the old saying " Close only matters with hand grenades and bombs ". Further I would say that the only ones voting for him were all Democrats. :rolleyes:

That's alright I'm not too impressed with Perry, this super highway he's thumping will be his undoing. Surprised not much was talked about this issue during the campaigning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further I would say that the only ones voting for him were all Democrats. :rolleyes:

Sounds like you haven't read the vote totals. In Harris County, where Republican Ed Emmett garnered 60% of the vote, and the countywide races went almost universally 55-57% Republican, Democrat Bill White actually BEAT Rick Perry. And, that's in spite of a 50,000 vote lead Perry got from straight ticket Republican voters! Lots of Houston Republicans (roughly 90,000) voted for Bill White.

When Bill White was mayor, he routinely got re-elected with 85-90% of the vote. Houstonians universally approved of Bill White.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like you haven't read the vote totals. In Harris County, where Republican Ed Emmett garnered 60% of the vote, and the countywide races went almost universally 55-57% Republican, Democrat Bill White actually BEAT Rick Perry. And, that's in spite of a 50,000 vote lead Perry got from straight ticket Republican voters! Lots of Houston Republicans (roughly 90,000) voted for Bill White.

When Bill White was mayor, he routinely got re-elected with 85-90% of the vote. Houstonians universally approved of Bill White.

No, I'm in La so I'm not up on voting in Houston, I can see the large republican vote for White, but don't find it surprising. I've watched Houston since 1970 go from a pretty conservative base to what it now is. My take on it is this, the overall ethnic balance of Houston has drastically shifted in less than 30 years. Not a moral judgment or dislike it's just my age and it really makes no difference to me any longer. What ever is in the cards will be played in the coming years, none of us have a lot of influence in that so why worry. I really don't think any of us have a true vision of what the world or Houston is going to be like in say 40 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Further I would say that the only ones voting for him were all Democrats.

2. I can see the large republican vote for White, but don't find it surprising.

Materene, would you care to resolve these two statements, made within 1h 20 mins of each other, for my benefit? I'm having some difficulty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say he still lost! You know the old saying " Close only matters with hand grenades and bombs ". Further I would say that the only ones voting for him were all Democrats. :rolleyes:

That's alright I'm not too impressed with Perry, this super highway he's thumping will be his undoing. Surprised not much was talked about this issue during the campaigning.

You'd be wrong on one count anyway. I live in a household with multiple voters and while we've all supported Perry in the past, that ended this election. He has become complacent and ineffective. We really need term limits in Texas.

And yes, he drew much criticism for the Trans Texas Corridor project. Many farmers and ranchers in South Texas were and are very vocal about this and that project, in that form anyway, was abandoned this year much to the delight of many property owners. Thus the reason it wasn't harped on during the campaign.

I believe that much of White's undoing was not the folks voting against HIM but those voting against WASHINGTON.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Further I would say that the only ones voting for him were all Democrats.

2. I can see the large republican vote for White, but don't find it surprising.

Materene, would you care to resolve these two statements, made within 1h 20 mins of each other, for my benefit? I'm having some difficulty.

Cross Party voting does not surprise me, nothing unusual about that. It was pointed out that 90,000 votes were Republican for White, maybe they dislike Perry as much as I do, and I consider myself to be conservative, notice I don't say Republican. I was joking about the all Democrat vote for White, but at the same time I really didn't know how many votes he got from either side. Is that better :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back on topic. I'm resolved to get my hands on one of these reports that cited an increase in rear-end collisions and give it a good read. I'm sure they published all their data and corrected for all confounding variables over the time period of the study.

I linked it earlier in the thread... http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05048/05048.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted against all 3 props. because we do not need a rain tax and because IMHO residency requirements to run for local office should be more like 5 years instead of even 12 months. We should not have outsiders who do not know the city well and have been a part of it become leaders here. If they want to become true Houstonians give it time and then qualify.

On the red light cameras; I am against them because:

-$44 million dollars pretty much went and left the city economy; to Arizona in fact....did not even stay in Texas

-The disgusting relationship of city govt. and private business to strip the public of money is deplorable. Yes, this was all about money and had nothing to do with safety. All of the tickets were civil offenses and none were criminal. In other words, if you could afford it you could run as many lights as you wanted, pay your money, and be on your way. The offense should have been criminal and the penalty should have been points added to your license, suspension of license, and even having it taken away from chronic problems. Maybe even jail time if you kept doing this over and over. That would have been about safety and getting bad drivers off of the road and before a judge.

-We had existing laws for red light runners. HPD should put officers at the most notorious intersections to catch the people who run the lights. The revenue from the tickets would pay for the officers to be there...DUH!!!! This not rocket science.

Ronald Green is just a fear monger saying the $10 million shortfall will cause severe cut in the city services and job loss. If that money was supposed to go for safety campaigns and trauma centers as a supplimental income then why was it budgeted as part of the base/core opperations source of funding to begin with?

Hopefully that lawyer who started the cause and got the issue on the table will now sue city because he claims the cameras violated the constituion (not sure how but I am not a lawyer). He should in his case demand that the city refund all drivers who were fined. That would be fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted against all 3 props. because we do not need a rain tax and because IMHO residency requirements to run for local office should be more like 5 years instead of even 12 months. We should not have outsiders who do not know the city well and have been a part of it become leaders here. If they want to become true Houstonians give it time and then qualify.

On the red light cameras; I am against them because:

-$44 million dollars pretty much went and left the city economy; to Arizona in fact....did not even stay in Texas

-The disgusting relationship of city govt. and private business to strip the public of money is deplorable. Yes, this was all about money and had nothing to do with safety. All of the tickets were civil offenses and none were criminal. In other words, if you could afford it you could run as many lights as you wanted, pay your money, and be on your way. The offense should have been criminal and the penalty should have been points added to your license, suspension of license, and even having it taken away from chronic problems. Maybe even jail time if you kept doing this over and over. That would have been about safety and getting bad drivers off of the road and before a judge.

-We had existing laws for red light runners. HPD should put officers at the most notorious intersections to catch the people who run the lights. The revenue from the tickets would pay for the officers to be there...DUH!!!! This not rocket science.

Ronald Green is just a fear monger saying the $10 million shortfall will cause severe cut in the city services and job loss. If that money was supposed to go for safety campaigns and trauma centers as a supplimental income then why was it budgeted as part of the base/core opperations source of funding to begin with?

Hopefully that lawyer who started the cause and got the issue on the table will now sue city because he claims the cameras violated the constituion (not sure how but I am not a lawyer). He should in his case demand that the city refund all drivers who were fined. That would be fun.

While I agree with just about everything you said, I do have to ask one small question:

Did you even READ the reasoning for Prop 2?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compared to the Redlight prop and the water tax prop, Prop 2 has gotten little love by the media or in HAIF. I wouldn't have read much into it either.

The reasoning on the ballot -

"Shall the City Charter of the City of Houston be amended to provide that for the general election to be held in November 2011, and for the purpose of redistricting, the required period of residency to file for the office of District Council Member shall be reduced from 12 months to 6 months preceding the election day? "

I think Larry's point is still valid... who care about the redistricting rationale if you still feel like 6 months or 12 months is too short a residency requirement for councilmen making decisions about Houstonians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would I, a Montrose resident, want a Dem/Rep, who has lived in Jersey Village for the past decade and decides he'll have a better chance of getting a council seat by moving to Montrose, to represent me in City Council ?

Edited by Highway6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a side note and I had to post this somewhere since the other relevant topic was locked - just back from well site in Canada and got some texts while there confirming that Chris Daniels won! :wacko: This was the most perplexing thing in our local elections and for me illustrates the biggest problem with straight ticket voting. Nothing personal against the guy but this person just graduated from Law school in December 2009 for one, which I saw since my friend also graduated with him! Most people that have some background in this situation lost MUCH faith in the system.

Edited by JJVilla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted for Prop 2, but if they wanted more votes for it, I think they could have used a more accurate fix for the problem. Like say, decrease residency requirement for the district for persons who at least lived in the city for the previous year.

The way it was written was kind of like using a shotgun to swat flies.

Edited by kylejack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted for Prop 2, but if they wanted more votes for it, I think they could have used a more accurate fix for the problem. Like say, decrease residency requirement for the district for persons who at least lived in the city for the previous year.

The way it was written was kind of like using a shotgun to swat flies.

Well, I have read up on it and seen the explanation (for my simple little brain) and it seems like a legit thing to vote for.

This being a census year, the maps will be redrawn (which I can't stand, BTW), and some members might up living in totally different district when that's done.

Reducing the amount of time for ONE ELECTION doesn't seem too unreasonable to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...