red light cameras ruling

[fingers]

What does this mean for the red light cameras in Arnold? Do they stay or go under this ruling?
http://www.stlbeacon.org/beacon_backroom/red_...

[Bill Moritz]

This has nothing to do with Arnold but I am pretty sure this is another one you will not read in a DTOM Press release...or in Arnold Talk.

[Shirlav]

Nope don't think you will see anything about this on AT. Interesting article.

[Vinny63010]

One case after another seems to back up the Red Light Cameras.

[ArnoldCC]

Vinny and Bill,

It is obvious you don't care what the constituents want. Why can't you understand that people feel like it is infringing on their constitutional rights and don't want them...especially as they are?

[Vinny63010]

ArnoldCC wrote:

Vinny and Bill,
It is obvious you don't care what the constituents want. Why can't you understand that people feel like it is infringing on their constitutional rights and don't want them...especially as they are?

CC,

Why can you not understand that some do not feel this, a public safety issue, should be up to a vote of the people. Just as we do not ask voters if we should have police, police cars, computers in cars, cameras in cars, better guns, unmarked police cars, and more. If equipment is legal, and the police feel it will serve to make the community safer, then I do not think police should ask permission to the voters to different?

It is clear that there are two different points of view.

This thread, however, is not about if the people want them or not. It is about the court case. I have been reading over an over about how these cameras are unconstitutional and will be thrown out with this court case or that. This was another case that was thown up a while back. Now, the decision is in and again the camera law holds strong as far as legality.

So,when this issue hits the ballot, the voters will get to decide for the police. The cameras may be voted out by the people. However, there is still not a court case in Missouri saying the cameras systems were not legal as I have been hearing since the went in.

[Vinny63010]

Also, The council does have the right to take a simple vote to remove the camera. I just read an article about a person who was elected sheriff, and the next day he started taking the cameras down. Interesting how he could do it so quick, and this council can not.

Fact is, if this council is against the cameras, they could make them go away. If they do not like the cameras do not photograph the face, they could add that requirement to the ordinance and change it tomorrow.

It is about having the courage of your convictions.

[Bill Moritz]

I seem to remember having this very discussion with the mayor on Tuesday. The fact is there is a Ward 1 Councilman who talks a big story and he knows he has the majority to remove the cameras if he wants it so badly. He just will not do it.

He has to know that as soon as it comes up I will take it upon myself to visit every parent teacher organization in the district and let them know what's up. Tell all the mothers at Rockport, for example, we are removing the cameras from in front of their children's school and then lets see how far public opinion carries this.

[siroD]

Bill,
Of course you would want to cause the council to do something that would result in expensive litigaion. We all know you need to help your friend, the city attorney out, like he hasn't milked us enough already. Just wondering where does he find the time to take care of all of the other people's cases, like the Winkler's and the citizens in Festus and the Big River Ambulance District and Jefferson County 911 when he is spending almost 2000 hours a year defending the City of Arnold. If he is billing us for around 40 hours per week, how many hours is he devoting to his other clients?
Bill,
You are attempting to create a scenario that doesn't currently exist. Have patience, let it go to a vote as scheduled and when the people make their voices heard and the council either removes the cameras at the end of the contract or renegotiates the contract, it will be at the request of the people, not in spite of them.
By the way, why didn't you speak up last night? Sounded like a bunch of blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, can you say drone on? Go listen to yourself over on Arnold Talk. We can definitely pin the tail on you for last night.....

[ArnoldCC]

Vinny63010 wrote:

<quoted text>
CC,
Why can you not understand that some do not feel this, a public safety issue, should be up to a vote of the people. Just as we do not ask voters if we should have police, police cars, computers in cars, cameras in cars, better guns, unmarked police cars, and more. If equipment is legal, and the police feel it will serve to make the community safer, then I do not think police should ask permission to the voters to different?
It is clear that there are two different points of view.
This thread, however, is not about if the people want them or not. It is about the court case. I have been reading over an over about how these cameras are unconstitutional and will be thrown out with this court case or that. This was another case that was thown up a while back. Now, the decision is in and again the camera law holds strong as far as legality.
So,when this issue hits the ballot, the voters will get to decide for the police. The cameras may be voted out by the people. However, there is still not a court case in Missouri saying the cameras systems were not legal as I have been hearing since the went in.

When the police ask for equipment, it isn't violating a law anywhere. However, there is a big difference in the equipment you are trying to use as an example and the RLC equipment. The equipment in the cars and such keep the officer safe and help give the officer information. It is not used to REPLACE an officer's job. The equipment you are using as an axample is not used to violate a person's rights either. Also, the police did not request this...YOU AND THE REST OF THE COUNCIL DID.

And you are wrong. Everytime we bring up an issue about the RLCs that is contrary to what you are trying to push for the GOB you scream off topic somehow. This has not gone off topic. It is about RLCs, plain and simple. The court case is just a component of the RLC discussion.

And Vinny, how do you explain a petition with over 900 signatures that is asking the Council for a voice. That tells me that either they don't want them or they want a different system to identify the driver of the vehicle.

[ArnoldCC]

Bill Moritz wrote:

I seem to remember having this very discussion with the mayor on Tuesday. The fact is there is a Ward 1 Councilman who talks a big story and he knows he has the majority to remove the cameras if he wants it so badly. He just will not do it.
He has to know that as soon as it comes up I will take it upon myself to visit every parent teacher organization in the district and let them know what's up. Tell all the mothers at Rockport, for example, we are removing the cameras from in front of their children's school and then lets see how far public opinion carries this.

Maybe you can explain to them why we won't put a police officer there to personally issue tickets and enforce the safety, too. Maybe you can explain to them why First Baptist Church of Arnold gets TWO officers every Sunday to let them out of an entrace to the church when they have one with a stop light, but we can't station an officer at Rockport to enforce the light that they have.

[ArnoldCC]

Vinny63010 wrote:

Also, The council does have the right to take a simple vote to remove the camera. I just read an article about a person who was elected sheriff, and the next day he started taking the cameras down. Interesting how he could do it so quick, and this council can not.
Fact is, if this council is against the cameras, they could make them go away. If they do not like the cameras do not photograph the face, they could add that requirement to the ordinance and change it tomorrow.
It is about having the courage of your convictions.

Wow! You think you have something. Why don't you produce a copy of their contract (for that sheriff that you are mentioning and please post the link to the article so we can see you are actually telling the truth and not making something up) so we can see if they built in an out in their contract for if this scenario happened. Contracts between different parties are different. Their contract may not be the same as ours. Matt Hay supplied a copy of the contract and in no way can the council remove the cameras without one of two things...either the contract has to expire and they don't renew it OR they have to renegotiate with ATS to try to get out of it (which I find it unlikely ATS will do). They can't choose to remove them and not to enforce the tickets without one of those two things happening...IT IS STATED SO IN THE CONTRACT!!!!! In the contract it lists in Schedule A or B (I can't remember which one off the top of my head, but one is ATS's responsibilities and the other is the City's responsibilities) the responsibilities of the City. One of those is to enforce the tickets and collect the tickets to the best of their ability. If the City does not do so, then they are in breach of their contract. Plain and Simple. Vinny, you teach, can you not read and understand a contract. You should find the teacher there that teaches about contracts and ask him/her. Make sure you supply them a FULL COPY of the contract so that they can give you the same statement that I have.

Also, changing the ordinance would make ATS's cameras illegal. I'll have to go back and reread the contract, but I think they are not allowed to do that either in the contract. Amato and his buddies made sure that contract was iron clad so that if they got voted out of office, they could take pot shots against the new Council for not getting rid of them just like you are doing now.

Now, tell me how a Council person can stick to their convictions when the previous council has bound them by a contract.

[Mindy Sterling]

Check out the video from Rockport elementary at the end. Then tell the mothers and fathers you want to do away with a safety measure for their children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Matt Hay]

Mindy Sterling wrote:

Check out the video from Rockport elementary at the end. Then tell the mothers and fathers you want to do away with a safety measure for their children.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

That camera sure prevented that driver from running the light...did take a nice photo however......perhaps if an actual officer had been there the driver would have received at minimum the points for disregarding an electronic signal, or perhaps a C&I, which would most likely would generate some real self-reflection, but instead, the City just sent out an unenforcable invoice. I bet that really taught the driver a lesson and made the streets safer. Kind of like scolding your dog for peeing on the rug while you were at work 3-4 weeks after the fact.

Come on, no one is for making our streets more dangerous, but many are for upholding the law and ensuring it is enforced in an equitable and just manner as well as safeguarding government against special intrests that have infiltrated our town and purchased themselves some politicians.

[Bill Moritz]

Matt Hay wrote:

<quoted text>
.
...safeguarding government against special intrests that have infiltrated our town and purchased themselves some politicians.

You have opened a door so go on and state your case.

[siroD]

Mindy Sterling wrote:

Check out the video from Rockport elementary at the end. Then tell the mothers and fathers you want to do away with a safety measure for their children.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Did it prevent the car from running the light? I think not, so how is than any safer?

[siroD]

Bill Moritz wrote:

<quoted text>
You have opened a door so go on and state your case.

The case has already been stated quite eloquently on this and other sites, someone keeps having them deleted off of this site, but you can still read all the gory details on Arnold Talk. Next you can follow the links to the proof.....I do so like this connect the dots game...care to play? Money is such a great motivator for those overtaken by greed that lack some common sense and decency. Arrogance at its finest the good ole boys club...

[RLC is Real Large Cash]

Matt Hay wrote:

<quoted text>
That camera sure prevented that driver from running the light...did take a nice photo however......perhaps if an actual officer had been there the driver would have received at minimum the points for disregarding an electronic signal, or perhaps a C&I, which would most likely would generate some real self-reflection, but instead, the City just sent out an unenforcable invoice. I bet that really taught the driver a lesson and made the streets safer. Kind of like scolding your dog for peeing on the rug while you were at work 3-4 weeks after the fact.
Come on, no one is for making our streets more dangerous, but many are for upholding the law and ensuring it is enforced in an equitable and just manner as well as safeguarding government against special intrests that have infiltrated our town and purchased themselves some politicians.

excellent post by Mr. Hay and I very much agree. If I get one I am throwing it in the trash and I suggest everyone else do the same. That will stop that system.

[Shirlav]

siroD wrote:

<quoted text>
Did it prevent the car from running the light? I think not, so how is than any safer?

No it did not stop the car from running the red light but the ticket in the mail may make that person be more alert the next time and I think that is what the cameras are for. They heighten peoples awareness. Also if there had been an accident there would be pics.

[RLC is Real Large Cash]

Bill Moritz wrote:

<quoted text>
You have opened a door so go on and state your case.

Bill is your keyboard for the blind ? It has been stated on here many times by siroD. It is either deleted or cleverly skipped over by you.
Can you tell us how much money was funneled to your campaign from ATS, Aboussie, Etling ?