Hot News!
• Proportional Representation: Christopher Smitherman v. Jeff Berding
• Portune’s Deal, Unopposed Republican Judges, and the Case for Proportional Representation
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
Events
 |
|
|
Monday, December 31, 2007
Smitherman to City: Don’t Install the Cameras Yet!
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
December 31, 2007
J. Rita McNeil
Room 214, City Hall
801 Plum Street
Cincinnati,OH 45202
(513)-352-1515
Dear City Solicitor,
I am writing to formally notify you, the City Manager, the Mayor, and City Council that the local Branch of the NAACP has voted to oppose the red light traffic camera initiative. Subsequently, the organization has retained an attorney, Chris Finney, to create a charter amendment for the November 2008 election.
The NAACP needs to collect approximately 9,000 valid signatures in order to place the Charter Amendment on the ballot. Given this course of action, it would be financially unwise to spend tax dollars to erect cameras prior to receiving notification that the necessary signatures have or have not been obtained. Should the traffic cameras be installed and all the signatures are collected, the Cincinnati NAACP will file a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to cease the dissemination of traffic tickets during the time period between the completed signatures process and the November 2008 election. The TRO will also include a waiver of payment for persons receiving tickets from traffic cameras prior to the verification of signatures by the Board of Election.
As President of the local NAACP Branch, it is my sincere hope that our city government closely evaluate any decision(s) to install and operate traffic cameras in the near future in Cincinnati.
Sincerely,
Christopher Smitherman
President of the Cincinnati NAACP
• Share This Article!
Listen to this article
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
02 Jan 2008 at 06:18 pm | #
What is the logical argument against installing cameras? If someone runs a redlight they should get a ticket. If you don’t run redlights what do you have to worry about?
Of course someone will find some instance where someone was incorrectly assigned a ticket or something and use this as their entire basis against the cameras.
I say put them up and start collecting the money from people breaking the law.
02 Jan 2008 at 06:50 pm | #
I would love to present a logical argument.
But first, let me introduce you to the sixth amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The word “confront,” in this context, means ”cross examine.”
One cannot “confront” an automated camera.
02 Jan 2008 at 07:42 pm | #
Dean: the confrontation would occur in traffic court where the evidence, the photograph, would be challenged. The accuser would be the City vis-a-vis its lawyers. The photo would be the equivalent of a police officer’s witness statement.
So assuming an August filing deadline for the signatures, Smitherman wants to hold the City hostage to his timeline?
What possible standing does the NAACP have in this case to request (sue for) a TRO? How could it possibly demonstrate harm by the camera installation proceeding?
Smitherman’s really, really tilting at windmills with this one, membership vote or no.
02 Jan 2008 at 07:47 pm | #
An inanimate object cannot be cross-examined.
02 Jan 2008 at 08:04 pm | #
Newsflash to all involved: The tickets from the red light cameras would be a civil matter, not criminal. Cases would be heard by an arbitrator, not Hamilton County courts. I don’t have time to search for a link, but you should check it out for yourselves.
02 Jan 2008 at 08:14 pm | #
Interesting 3 part news article from the Akron Ohio area about these stop lights (& ‘servicing’ companies). The below set of articles, videos & pictures relate stories of:
* The wrong car getting the ticket (car in the other lane was the one at fault)
* Tickets being sent out to the wrong licesne plate (photo was blurry so the servicing company guessed & sent out the ticket anyway).
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/10927743/detail.html
Make no mistake about it. These stop light camera servicing companies are in it for the money. It’s to their benefit to send out as many tickets as possible, accurate or not.
02 Jan 2008 at 08:35 pm | #
Egbert Sousé,
Arbitration sounds quite fair, until you get involved in a managed situation like this. Arbitrators rule against consumers 95% of the time. Those who don’t rule against the consumer just don’t get picked again:
http://consumerist.com/consumer/credit-cards/arbitration-firm-rules-against-consumers-95-of-the-time-304648.php
03 Jan 2008 at 12:02 pm | #
I guess surveillance video is out the window then, huh, Dean? You can’t cross examine a video…
If they can work out kinks in the process and make sure that the third party isn’t paid on a per-ticket basis...i see no problem with this.
Possible issues: people turning left on a red when traffic clears; increased accidents as people rear-end each other (which i think will go away...and i think people need to pay more attention anyway).
03 Jan 2008 at 12:18 pm | #
Dean: you need to understand the difference between witnesses and evidence.
How are security videotapes “cross examined”? Audio tapes? Written statements?
You’re being silly.
03 Jan 2008 at 05:21 pm | #
What the Dean needs to understand is if idiots don’t run red-lights it won’t be a problem. Trying to say that we should not have these cameras because you cannot ask the cameras or the photos provided is irrelevant. That is tantamount to saying that we shouldn’t use security cameras when no other person is present. Guess banks and the like shouldn’t waste their money trying to prevent crime in that manner after closing hours.
It always amazes me how people can rationalize illegal activity. These cameras aren’t going to engage in racial profiling or target anyone other than offenders who run red lights. There is no argument against having them other than people don’t want to get caught. No one’s rights are infringed upon by the existence of these cameras.
03 Jan 2008 at 05:45 pm | #
What you need to understand is that this is not about running red-lights; it is about protecting Constitutional rights. What, are you against the Constitution now?
03 Jan 2008 at 05:45 pm | #
Oh, and I didn’t know that if you are caught robbing a store on camera that they will just mail you a ticket.
03 Jan 2008 at 09:07 pm | #
N to the C,
The collisions will not go down according to a study by the Virginia Department of Transportation
“The cameras were not associated with a decrease in rear-end crashes over time after the initial increase that followed camera installation,”
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp
(VDOT PDF study is linked to that article)
This isn’t about justification, this is about stopping city council from creating more hazardous road conditions. And when collisions increase in a given area, so do insurance rates. We will all get to pay on this one.
04 Jan 2008 at 04:16 am | #
Can a camera save us from drunk drivers? The possiblility of a drunken idiot running into someone I know scares me more than some cell-phone talker who runs a red light. Will the cameras be placed where they are really needed like outside the bars in Mt. Adams? Mt. Washington? Hyde Park? Rock on with 24 hour surveillance for the entire population. Why stop at red lights? Lets monitor people’s minds too. If everyone is pure in thought, they can not do any bad deed.
He who controls the past, controls the future!
04 Jan 2008 at 12:33 pm | #
Dean: you still haven’t articulated in your own words the specific constitutional violation. You suggest that being mailed a ticket is without an avenue of redress- I doubt it.
Funnelcake- yes I suppose people used to following other people through red lights will cause rear end collisions for following too close, but those people need to be culled from the driving herd and in the long run will mend their ways.
04 Jan 2008 at 07:14 pm | #
Dean: You suggest our constitutional rights are being violated, but I don’t see that happening. Just like any other ticket you could go to court and contest it; however, it becomes much harder to get away with something when the prosecution provides a photo of you running a red-light. The process of a speedy and public trial are not lost in this scenario. The only thing lost is the ability of people to run red lights when the police are not around.
Answer me this though: Why is the NAACP so interested in this issue?
07 Jan 2008 at 08:12 pm | #
Hey instead of worrying about white people getting tickets for running red lights, why don’t you write a letter, or start a march or an investigation, or get on the news about that young boy that was killed in custody at 2020. That tale about swallowing crack sounds bogus. Or maybe a black male child ending up dead in custody isn’t the business of the NAACP. Check with Finney and see if he gives the okay.
07 Jan 2008 at 08:57 pm | #
Its Unreasonable for the fact someone could borrow your car one day and run a redlight,or commit some other crime and it would be your car that faces the charges, not the driver!
08 Jan 2008 at 08:52 am | #
Cincysuz...you’re sad. You don’t even know the boy’s name, yet, you’re attempting to call out the NAACP to look into his death. Why does it sound bogus that Massey swallowed crack cocaine when the autopsy hasn’t even been released yet? It’s called logical thinking, Cincysuz...try it sometimes.
If the membership wants the NAACP to investigate, they someone will present to motion and there will be a vote. Tell you what...join the NAACP and introduce a motion for the organization to investigate the death of Sedrick Massey if you want the NAACP to investigate. Otherwise, you should refrain from attempting to set the NAACP’s agenda if you’re not a member. If you’re not a member, you have no say in the agenda. That simple. And it goes to anyone who’s not a member. Everyone say it with me..."membership-driven organization!”
The red light cameras effect the entire Cincinnati community. The NAACP membership VOTED to oppose the red light cameras and to collect signatures if neccesary for a charter amendment. Key word is VOTED. Don’t be mad at the NAACP’s membership setting its agenda if you’re not a member.
01 Feb 2008 at 12:21 pm | #
Given the Ohio State Supreme Court’s ruling that these are constitutional, what now?
Can something legally allowable by the State be prohibited in the City? Don’t know.