Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackie S
My entire beef is the way the City allows a private company to profit off of laws that carry the full weight of a government body behind them. If the City wants red light cameras, buy them, maintain them, and keep all of the proceeds in the City.
|
#1: If it flies, floats, or f**ks, rent it.
#2: The City doesn't get to keep all the money anyway by statute (or fines either).
Somewhere above I posted the disbursement of the proceeds, which by the way is pissing in a hurricane comparatively speaking to the City's budget, even the law enforcement portion of the budget by itself.
If the judge's ruling on the validity of the election stands up on appeal, it is an expensive lesson for all concerned. As in most cases, it is cheaper to "do it right" the first time than try to "undo it" or "fix it" afterwards.
Lesson: Everyone keep an eye on the "agenda" items (its on the internet) and spread the word (using the internet) to fight it at counsel meetings, and then to get out the vote one direction or another.
Do I give a rat's ass about the cameras? No. I don't cut red lights.
Do I care about the process? Yes.
There apparently is a lot of misinformation (distortion) on all sides, whether it is intentional or not is usually difficult to tell. A lot of the "information" is hype from the media playing to the audience or market.
Just my opinion: If these cameras were someone's idea of "making money for the City," I hope for the financial wellbeing of the City in the future that the person is no longer being paid by the City. Mayor White comes to mind, because it was "cranked up" and contracted on his watch.
