How Ohio profits from dangerous intersections

This commentary went up yesterday at Ohio Watchdog. I'm sharing it here because it's reflective of many points I've made all along about the red light and speed cameras.

REVENUE: If it’s really all about safety, where are the traffic engineering studies showing why intersections are unsafe?

Since 2001, when Toledo became one of the first Midwestern cities to install red light cameras, we’ve been told it was all about safety. Any revenue associated with making dangerous intersections safer was an unintended bonus.

“We are not looking at this as a revenue-producing thing, but as a traffic crash-reduction program,” said Toledo Police Lt. Louis Borucki.

In 2002, TPD Chief Mike Navarre told the Toledo Blade “It’s never about money. It’s about reducing accidents.”

In 2003, Toledo considered adding speed cameras. Apparently afraid of getting a ticket for running a red light, motorists were speeding up to get through an intersection. Who would have expected that?

In 2004, the city added more cameras, including speed cameras, bringing the total to 21.

“This is for personal safety. It’s not for balancing the general fund,” Tom Crothers, the city’s acting finance director, told the Blade.

But the financial impact was significant. In 2004, Toledo’s 25 percent take of the ticket amount was $279,700. Redflex, the company that won the contract for the cameras, got the rest.

In 2007, as the city considered an increase in the red light camera fines, safety was, again, the focus:

The additional revenue would make a major dent in the potential $10 million deficit next year, but the chief said that was not the intent.

“The job of the police department is to do enforcement and reduce accidents,” Navarre said. “If we increase revenue while we do that, that is a fortunate byproduct. It is certainly not our objective.”

In 2008, the Toledo council voted to increase the fine – from $95 to $120 – and negotiated 55 percent of the take. The city projected  revenue from the cameras would increase from $606,025 collected in 2007 to $2.5 million.

But a funny thing happened. As more people became aware of the cameras and either adjusted their driving or avoided the targeted intersections, revenue fell below projections.

In discussing the shortfall in 2009, Navarre continued the safety theme, saying “money is absolutely not the reason for the cameras.”

As a group was gathering signatures to place a red light camera ban on the ballot, Navarre again said, “The fact that revenue is generated is a fortunate by-product.”

Clearly, the revenue was important, more so as the city expanded the number and type of cameras it used.

If we are to take the politicians, law enforcement personnel and advocates at their word — that it’s all about safety — where are the studies showing why the intersections so unsafe?  What is it about certain intersections that make right-angle crashes more prevalent?

Barnet Fagel, a traffic researcher and a highway safety advocate with motorist advocacy group the National Motorists Association, said:

“There’s no need for cameras if intersections are safe,” explains Fagel. “Cameras document traffic engineering errors. They don’t prevent collisions, they only record them.”

And, “If an intersection is properly engineered you don’t need cameras. I feel as long as intersections are inherently unsafe they will be profitable for the camera company and the village.”

When trying to determine problems at an intersection, the National Traffic Safety Board recommends conducting studies of intersections and approaches to determine why red-light accidents happen. They identify several countermeasures to consider, including increasing yellow light times, having red lights in all directions before any light turns green and creating designated turn lanes.

The Federal Highway Administration on its intersection safety web page says:

Research shows that yellow interval duration is a significant factor affecting the frequency of red-light running and that increasing yellow time to meet the needs of traffic can dramatically reduce red-light running.

The FHA links to this report, which estimates results if a specific countermeasure or group of countermeasures is implemented.  A crash reduction factor is the “percentage crash reduction that might be expected after implementing a given countermeasure.”

Red light cameras have a CRF of 16 for right-angle fatal/injury crashes and a CRF of 25 for all injuries from right-angle crashes.  But their impact on rear-end crashes has a CRF ranging from minus 15 to minus 57, meaning they actually increase the chance of crashing.

The CRF for all types of crashes and all types of injuries using the red light cameras is minus 12.

Adding an all-red clearance interval has a CRF of 30 for right-angle crashes, which makes it more effective than a red-light camera.

Other measures listed with higher reduction factors than cameras are:

• Improving signal timing — CRF of 30 for right-angle fatal/injury crashes
• Increasing yellow change interval — CRF of 30 for right-angle fatal/injury crashes
• Provide protected left-turn phase — CRF of 80 for right-angle crashes and 30 for all types of crashes
• Converting intersections to roundabouts — CRF of 78 for fatal/injury crashes at signaled intersections.

All would be better at improving intersection safety than installing a red light camera — if safety is really the issue.

As the General Assembly debates a ban on cameras, will anyone ask the camera proponents if they followed this advice to determine the cause of crashes before they installed cameras?

In 2012 when Toledo added 11 more cameras, officials admitted that revenue was the only reason.

Finance Director Patrick McLean said the city selected the new intersections with the help of the Arizona-based company American Traffic Solutions.

The firm used a computer program to analyze traffic volumes and patterns across Toledo to determine intersections where red light violations are most likely to occur, he said.

Despite clear advice from experts in traffic safety, Toledo has never conducted a traffic engineering study of the numerous intersections they say are so dangerous. In this latest vote, they placed the cameras at intersections were violations were “likely.”

Why did they want the extra cameras?  To raise $320,000 to fund the city’s recreation department.

Apparently it is just about the money.

Ohio House passes red light/speed camera ban

This post went up earlier today at Ohio Watchdog:

Are red light cameras essential safety tools that save lives or part of local money-grabbing scams that ignore due process while giving politicians more spending money?

It depends on whom you ask, and in this case political party affiliation has little to do with it.

H.B. 69, legislation that would prohibit cities and the Ohio State Highway Patrol from using a “traffic law photo-monitoring device to determine a violation of either the state traffic light or speed limit statute,” was approved 9-4 by the House Transportation Committee Tuesday.

Late today, the measure was approved by the full House by a vote of 61 to 32.

Continue reading...

'Free' soccer clinic vs. roads or shooting ranges

I received a press release from the City of Toledo touting their latest recreational program for kids:

Free soccer clinic to be offered at Smith Park

The City of Toledo Division of Parks, Recreation and Forestry and the Toledo Celtics Soccer Club will sponsor a free soccer clinic from 1-3 p.m. this Saturday, June 29, 2013 at Smith Park, 910 Dorr St..

The clinic will be open to boys and girls ages seven to 14 years to learn the game of soccer and build basic soccer skills with instruction from local and international coaches. Participants will have opportunities to win soccer balls and tee shirts. Coaches will also offer a ball juggling demonstration featuring advanced footwork and agility skills.

For additional information about this free event, please contact the Division of Parks Recreation and Forestry at 419-936-3887.

###

Here's the thing: the city doesn't have any money.

Don't you remember last year when Council members Lindsay Webb and Steve Steel were pushing a 1-mill recreation levy because there just wasn't enough money to cover the costs of maintaining parks?

So where does the city get the money to host a "free" soccer clinic and give away "free" soccer balls and "free" t-shirts? Red light cameras?

And it's definitely NOT free. Our tax dollars have gone to provide this at no cost to participants, instead of paying for essential services like roads. Our street had two places where the road was falling in. One was finally repaired - very nicely - but the other, not one house away, is still a disaster. When will that become a 'necessity' like the soccer clinic?

And how many kids do you think will actually participate?

Like city pools, the politicians are catering to the extreme minority while telling all of us that our quality of life is enhanced when they do so.

But what I really want to know is this: If Toledo can do a 'free' soccer clinic, hwen do I get my "free" shooting range?

Smile for the emergency vehicle - or how I learned to stop worrying and love the red light camera

Ohio Senate Bill 97, introduced by Republican Jim Hughes from Franklin County, would "allow emergency personnel in public safety vehicles to report traffic law violations under certain circumstances."

Basically, if you fail to yield to an emergency vehicle, like a fire truck or rescue squad which is responding to an emergency, the personnel in that emergency vehicle can report you for this violation - along with any others you might commit at the same time - to the local police jurisdiction.

The law also says local law enforcement:

"...may conduct an investigation to attempt to determine or confirm the identity of the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation. If the identity of the operator at the time of the alleged violation is established, the reporting of the license plate number of the vehicle shall establish probable cause for the law enforcement agency to issue a citation for the violation..."

And if they can't determine the operator of the car at the time of the violation?

"...if the identity of the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation cannot be established, the law enforcement agency may issue a warning to the person who owned the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation, except in the case of a leased or rented vehicle, any warning shall be issued to the person who leased or rented the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation."

This doesn't seem unreasonable but here's what I want to know: how come the same rules don't apply to red light and speed cameras?

Wouldn't it just be easier for the emergency personnel to snap a picture?

Red light and speed cameras operate on the assumption that the owner of the vehicle is guilty, even if they can prove they weren't the driver. The only way to get out of the exorbitant fine - which is just a money-grab for local municipalities - is to actually produce the guilty party.

The police are not required to investigate - the registered owner of the vehicle is guilty. There is no warning if the owner proves they weren't driving - it's a huge fine just the same. And in order to get out of all the due process rules normally inherent in any traffic violation, cities call these *civil* violations. But that is specifically so they can cite the owner, not the actual driver.

We shouldn't have double standards in the law. The General Assembly needs to either outlaw red light/speed cameras or require municipalities to adhere to the due process protections normally afforded these violations.

Hey Webb and Steel - whatever happened to the camera revenue that was supposed to fund recreation?

On January 24th, Finance Director Patrick McLean told Toledo City Council that 11 additional red light cameras were to be installed around Toledo to raise $320,000 to fund recreation programs.

As I wrote at the time:

Can't you just see the ads now?

* Run a red light - it's for the children!

* When you run a red light, that money goes to buy eggs for the annual Easter Egg hunt. Don't let needy children go without an egg on Easter - run a red light today!

and my favorite for which I even made a poster

* Without government recreational programs, kids will turn to crime. So run a red light ... commit a crime to keep kids from becoming criminals.

The next day, The Blade reported:

Finance Director Patrick McLean told Toledo City Council members the city wants to expand its red-light camera program to 11 additional intersections by May, adding to more than 30 already in operation. The new cameras would generate about $320,000 this year, enough to plug a shortfall for recreation in the 2012 budget, he said.

The cameras also would generate recreation program revenue into the future, the finance director indicated. He did not have information Tuesday on where the new devices would be located.

So if the revenue from the red light cameras is supposed to go to fund recreation programs, why do we need a levy???

Inquiring minds....

(For further information the levy - which will have a second reading at tonight's council meeting, you can read here and here.)

Toledo City Council Meeting - June 19, 2012

Here are Sherry's notes...my apologies for not getting this posted earlier:

In attendance: Councilmen Steel, Martinez, Collins, Sarantou, Craig, Ludeman, Copeland, Waniewski, McNamara, Riley, Councilwomen Webb, Hicks-Hudson, Mayor Bell.

Item 292 – Resolution – Recognize Rabbi Edward Garsek on his retirement – adopted – all voting yes.

Item 299 – Resolution – Recognize Helping Hands of St. Louis on their 30th anniversary – adopted – all voting yes.

Item 226 – Amend plan documents for City employment benefits to include domestic partners – Mayor veto's 226 – goes against the Charter (per the Law Director) – he also tells Council that they have no right for their action. Illegal attempt to super cede the Charter – this will end up costing the tax payer money.

Collins – will not dignify personal attacks by the TPPA, can't afford it – Local 92 has their own insurance, no information shared for collective bargaining – look at Council as the Board of Directors – they handle challenges themselves – this was his (the Mayor's) Union. (He was called out by name in the Mayor's letter.)

Yes vote to over ride the veto – Webb, Collins – yes, Riley, Waniewski, Martinez, Craig, Ludeman, McNamara, Sarantou, Hicks-Hudson, Steel, Copeland – no. Motion failed.

Ludeman – Original legislation – what will it trigger if passed? Sarantou and myself sent an Amendment to impact the budget, based on a letter from Dan Waggner. A. Loux – up to Union if they want it – this opens up a can of worms – take it or leave it benefit. Sarantou – different sexes have a solution – they can get married – same sex, different story.

Webb – same rules for domestic partners? A. Loux – old contract. Webb – new insurance covers kids up till age 28 – expanding the benefit – Waggner to accept new benefits. Herwat – yes. Webb – we do need to take action.

Collins – Director Loux, if the Mayor did this on his own – can he? A. Loux – overreaching – Council not needed. Collins – network, other things associated with it – he can do it without Council.

Hicks-Hudson – Who would be responsible? A. Loux – the City. Hicks-Hudson – bogged down in labor negotiations – How is this benefit funded? A. Loux – right now each employee costs the City $11,000 – budget accordingly.

Item 319 – Resolution – Encourage Mayor to bargain with Firefighters Local 92 on health care trust for D. P. benefit - Ludeman - 1st Reading. Steel – resolution. A. Loux – not illegal. Vote for 1st Reading – passed – Ludeman – no, rest yes. Slow Roll – passed – Craig, Ludeman no – rest yes. Craig – extended by an hour – bringing in something, and then it passes (quite mad, never have seen him like this) Refer to Committee. A. Loux – look at Charter. Steel – relieve from Committee, vote yes – passed – Sarantou, Craig, Ludeman – no, rest yes. Regular vote – passed – all voting yes.

Item 286 – Sale of 2328 Sylvania Ave. (Police sub-station) To Global Direct Invest, LLC, $270,000 – 7% broker fee – Waniewski – thanks to the Administration for selling off assets. There are three things that I look at for determining my attention; 1) police 2) fire 3) road paving. It is active – keep the building – Police presence.

Ludeman – agrees with Waniewski, but should sell. Went to the area and saw five Police cars in the area – the new owner wants all the square feet – no Police. Riley – property is viable – near his district – no business sense – need it. Director Green – will need to move Officers – SVU Unit, Senior Center out there.

Craig – we all want more protection – doesn't have to do with the building – doesn't matter – more Police protection does not make you safer. Collins – community based policing - things change – concepts change, but neighborhoods don't. Need to have this presence – come up with the funding now? Go with the district 5 representative. Martinez – prices of the center are different – don't have the resources – understands the need of the common good – on the fence about this.

Cruthers – this is only an asset sale. Waniewski – this station borders three districts.

Riley - $460,000 paid originally. How much money did we put into it? Administration – We'll check into it. Riley – we have put money into it – selling for $270,000 – this neighborhood is stable, don't sell.

Webb – I went to a block watch for this station many years ago – the issue was to put boots on the ground – selling an asset at fire sale rate – this station has about 1 mil into it – it will be the same as before. Martinez – (to Ms. Green) What is the intent? Green – to put Officers out of there on July 1st.

Failed – Ludeman, Martinez – yes, rest no.

Item 293 – Appropriation for 5 agencies providing homelessness services, $103,797 General Fund – to Neighborhoods Committee.

Item 294 – Resolution – Support SEIU Local I and rights of janitors – adopted – Waniewski, Ludeman – no, rest yes.

Item 295 – Resolution – Request Lucas County Auditor certify current valuation and dollar amount generated by 1 mil - 1st Reading. Steel – hearing Thursday – extend to 1st Reading (295 + 296).

Item 296 – Resolution – Submit to electors for November 6th election question of 1 mil levy for 10 years for parks & recreation - 1st Reading.

Item 297 – Expenditure to Pros. Consulting LLC to update Parks Recreation Master Plan, $25,000 Athletic Trust – passed – all voting yes. Waniewski – looks to support resolution in the community. Steel – recreation at large to parell Master Plan. Webb – we will use all avenues – public and private (to Waniewski).

Item 298 – Amend TMC Ch. 161 & 163 to combine into new Toledo Parks, Athletic & Recreation Commission – to Youth, Parks, and Recreation Committee.

Item 300 – Accept State grant for Misdemeanant Intensive Supervision (MIS) Probation for Municipal Court, $303,834 – passed – all voting yes.

Item 301 – Amend plan documents for City employment benefits to include domestic partners – passed – Sarantou, Waniewski, Collins, Ludeman – no, Riley, Martinez, Craig, McNamara, Hicks-Hudson, Steel, Copeland, Webb – yes.

Item 302 – Appropriation for 38th Year CDBG funds, $6,839,464 – to Neighborhoods Committee.

Item 303 – Expenditure for 26th Year Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), $610,343 - to Neighborhoods Committee.

Item 304 – Appropriation for chemical dust collectors at Water Treatment Plant, $320,000 Water Bond Fund – passed – all voting yes.

Item 305 – Re-appropriation of old CIP projects for Acme Building expenditures & sensational for Parks, $383,500 CIP – passed – all voting yes.

Item 306 – Transfer from Greenwood Park Trust to pay outstanding invoices for Blair Museum, $15,000 Trust - Steel – go to 1st Reading – no board. Go to SUP. Passed – all voting yes.

Item 307 – Accept PUCO hazardous materials training grant for Environmental Services, $11,715 – passed – all voting yes.

Item 308 – Expenditure for 2012 fee for underground storage tanks, 28 tanks @ $600 = $16,800 Risk management Fund – passed – all voting yes.

Item 309 – Resolution – Re-state pension pick up for AFSCME Local 2058, 2012 5%, 2013 2%, 2014 = 0% - adopted – all voting yes.

Item 310 – Sale of 3527 Twining St. at Manhattan to William Douglas for food vending, $4,500 – passed – all voting yes.

Item 311 – Agreement with Redflex for red light & speeding enforcement cameras, 5 years + 2 two-year options – Collins – Bell Administration, recognize, favorable for exaction. Passed – all voting yes.

Sherry's comments: No calibration for speed, but guns are calibrated. This is civil violation, you are guilty , no accuser. This has always been a cash cow, it is not about safety. As our former Chief stated, it was ALL about safety. A Police Officer would not sign my petition years ago for red light cameras. He told me that there wasn't enough man power to go around.)

Item 318 – Agreement with Munich RE for stop loss insurance for medical & prescription drug, $55,000 Allocation – Transfer from CIP Fund (2328 Sylvania Ave.) to North West Public Safety Trust Fund, $75,000 – passed – all voting yes.

Item 312 – Zone change at 4413 Bennett Rd. (Approved 5 – 0) – passed – all voting yes.

Item 313 – Zone change at 5344/5350 Monroe St. (Approved 5 – 0) – passed – all voting yes.

Item 314 – Amend TMC Ch. 1103 & 1112, merge Vistula Historic District Commission with Toledo City HDC – passed – all voting yes.

Item 315 – SUP for solar panel installation and parking lot at 650 Lincoln and 1828 Glenwood (Approved 6 – 0) – passed – all voting yes.

Item 316 – Appeal Major Site Plan Review for additional signage at 236 New Towne Square Drive (W/O Recommendation 5 – 0) – passed – McNamara – no, rest yes. Webb – supports proposal – owner understands – family business.

Item 317 - Appeal Major Site Plan Review for additional signage at 4210 W. Sylvania Ave. (W/O Recommendation 5 – 0) – passed – McNamara – no, rest yes. Waniewski – raise up sign five feet – near Mall.

Last Call:

Martinez – 6/25 meeting, rock it – bring lots of ideas.

Riley – supports pools – thanks from the kids. It was a good day (Saturday).

Steel – 1) H. S. (concerned) EOPA – emergency repair – concerned about cutting funds. 2) Webb and myself looked at Roosevelt Pool, great. Highland Park pool – damaged/disrepair – assistance made? How much? Bids/cost assessments – future? Herwat – will respond to your referral.

Waniewski – 1) 5754 Mante St., Secor (bars – didn't catch the second address) reports on the 18th and 19th of this month. 2) 3535 W. Sylvania Ave. (Notre Dame) question about light, now that school is out. 3) (didn't catch the address) yard sale every weekend, should be considered as a flea market.

Webb – 2 year old drowned (pray for family) – Point Place residents.

Collins – Botanical Gardens Art Show this weekend.

Hicks-Hudson – 1) foreclosure/vacant property – go over next meeting 2) Thanks kids at Roosevelt Pool 3) District 4 displays glass art, great thing.

Ludeman – 1) Glad to keep Police presence in district 5. What will be done after July 1st? Need to keep Police presence at this site. 2) This Thursday at 4 PM – presentation from UT – dynamic – Herzing SAP education. 3) Sunday is daughter's 29th birthday.

Council ignores safety issues, approves red light cameras as revenue source only

Yesterday morning I sent the following email to every member of Toledo City Council as they were scheduled to vote on the plan to install 11 new red light cameras in order to raise money to fund the Recreation Department:

Dear members of Toledo City Council,

Today you are scheduled to vote on installing another 11 red light cameras. All of you say the cameras are for 'safety' at the intersections. However, no traffic engineering studies have been done to determine the safety issues at the various intersections or the potential solutions to the safety issues. In fact, per the statements at the committee meeting yesterday, the locations of the cameras, as determined by an Arizona firm are based upon "likely" red light violations - not even actual ones! You've not even identified how many red-light violations or accidents have actually happened at these intersections. Councilman Rob Ludeman asked that you "begin" to keep records on the safety issues, indicating that you currently do not have them in your possession.

If these intersections are so "unsafe" that you need to install a camera, aren't they "unsafe" enough to justify an examination of the intersections to determine what makes them so unsafe? And also to know the various solutions?

Since you don't know why they're unsafe, you cannot say that a red light (or speed camera) can make them safer. It may be, as other cities have found, that a red light camera makes them MORE unsafe (increased rear-end accidents).

Please - if you are serious about the safety and not just interested in the revenue - please insist upon a traffic engineering study to find out what the 'problem' is that makes these intersections so unsafe before you implement a 'solution' that may make things worse.

I received only one response, from Tom Waniewski:

Hi Maggie –

Thanks for the email. I always appreciate your perspective and subsequent comments.
I think your arguments are valid ones, and the request is fair.

You may recall in 2008, when a batch of the cameras were being added to the city landscape, I argued that flashing yellow lights should be placed in areas alerting motorists that the light is about to turn red. The Trail’s camera is a good example. Of course this did not happen because of the additional cost. There is no cost for these cameras to us. The other point that concerns me is that there is no good recourse for someone to challenge there ticket. While that may not be an issue on the red lights (you can see the car in the intersection when the light is red), it is for speeding.

Given a chance to actually PROVE the cameras are for safety and not just revenue, Council failed. None of them raised the issue, so obviously they don't care. They've found a source of money to fund an unnecessary expenditure and so they don't have to cut.

They don't have to risk anyone getting mad at them while they watch the city decline.

As with all the other cameras in the city - as well as across the nation - as people get used to the cameras, the revenues decline. Eventually, the city will be faced with no money to cover all their little pet projects and then what will they do?

They're just making the situationw worse - and it's nothing to be proud of.

The big question is this: will the voters ever get a clue and actually make a change?

My husband has long said that Toledo is like a drug addict who hasn't hit bottom yet to know he needs to change.

Are we at rock bottom yet?

Ultimate red light camera question for Toledo City Council

Actually, this question would apply to any entity that wants to install red light or speed cameras. Feel free to demand an answer of your elected officials!

If these cameras are for "safety" then where are the traffic engineering studies you did on each intersection documenting the safety issues and potential solutions???


When they don't have any traffic engineering studies that document the safety issues at the intersections ask a follow-up question: Then why are you implementing a 'solution' when you don't even know what the 'problem' is???

Obviously, this is all about the money and asking this question will clearly demonstrate that fact.

Toledo City Council: liar, liar, pants on fire

Tomorrow Toledo City Council is scheduled to vote on adding 11 red light cameras in order to - hopefully - generate $320,000 to fund recreational programs. From all the news reports and comments, it appears that the measure will pass. After all, 'if it saves just one life' ...

For a decade, Toledo administrators and elected officials have told us the cameras are there for our safety. On June 22, 2009, as the city was discussing the fact that the camera revenue was not as projected, Police Chief Mike Navarre was on the record emphasizing safety over money.

Toledo Police Chief Mike Navarre said money is absolutely not the reason for the cameras.

"I believe in the red-light camera[s] and they have been proven just by the very fact there is a drop in violations at the intersections where they are installed," Chief Navarre said. "If less people are going through red lights, there are going to be less accidents."

In 2007, as the city supported an increase in the red light camera fines, safety was, again, the focus:

From Chief Navarre:The additional revenue would make a major dent in the potential $10 million deficit next year, but the chief said that was not the intent.

"The job of the police department is to do enforcement and reduce accidents," Chief Navarre said. "If we increase revenue while we do that, that is a fortunate byproduct. It is certainly not our objective."

From Councilman Rob Ludeman: "What sold me was not so much the revenue source but making the intersections safer."

In 2009, as a group was gathering signatures to put the red light camera issue on the ballot, Chief Navarre again emphasized that revenue was merely a "by-product."

While the cameras do produce revenue for the city, Chief Navarre said that is not their sole purpose.

He said every camera throughout the city has shown a steady decline in violations since they were installed.

"That means less people are running red lights and I think it's logical and sensible to conclude there will be less accidents," he said. "The fact that revenue is generated is a fortunate by-product."

And then there's Councilman Tom Waniewski, who in 2008 said:

Councilman Tom Waniewski asked if the Finkbeiner administration would consider installing flashing yellow lights in advance of red lights to warn motorists.

"I'm concerned that a lot of times now, particularly now with increased air patrol, which is intended to be a revenue generator, that we're becoming a gotcha city," Mr. Waniewski said.

But today, Waniewski has accepted the idea of being a "gotcha city":

“If it will keep accidents down, then fantastic. I think we’ve probably come to accept the cameras as part of our landscape,” councilman Tom Waniewski said.

"...we've come to accept" the cameras? Wow - what a testament to Toledoans and their willingness to have their liberties infringed. And what a comment for a Republican councilman.

I guess we should be grateful that, at least now, they're all admitting it's just for the money. Finally we see their previous claims of safety for the lies they were.

But that's not all, folks - they're actually bragging about that fact and how this is a great solution to their budget problems. Heaven forbid that they actually try to live within their revenue rather than just create new taxes, fees and fines to continue spending beyond their means!

The worst part of this is how they came up with the new locations. According to today's paper, the intersections were selected based upon where red light running is "likely" to occur.

Finance Director Patrick McLean said the city selected the new intersections with the help of the Arizona-based company American Traffic Solutions.

The firm used a computer program to analyze traffic volumes and patterns across Toledo to determine intersections at which red light violations are most likely to occur, he said.

So we're not looking at accidents caused by running a red light. We're not looking at the number of violations of running a red light. We're letting some Arizona company predict where their computer program says it's "most likely" to have revenue. And that's where we're installing them.

Here's the thing that most frustrates me: if we have intersections where red light running is "likely," why haven't we modified those intersections to address that likelihood and thus make our intersections .... wait for it .... SAFER?!?

Here is the list of intersections:

• The southbound and northbound lanes of Secor Road at West Alexis Road, a congested intersection near Whitmer High School
• The northbound and southbound lanes of the Anthony Wayne Trail at Glendale Avenue southwest of the Toledo Zoo
• The eastbound and westbound lanes of West Bancroft Street at North Reynolds Road
• The eastbound and northbound lanes at Heatherdowns Boulevard at South Byrne Road
• Northbound North Detroit Avenue at Dorr Street
• Northbound Talmadge Road at Monroe Street, close to Westfield Franklin Park mall
• Southbound Collingwood Boulevard at Dorr Street

If Toledo city council members vote yes on this plan, it makes them all liars. They cannot stand by prior comments that the cameras are all about safety and then turn around and use them to fund the recreation department.

Call or email your city council members and tell them to vote no on using red light cameras sto fund the recreation department. Here is their contact information:

Toledo City Council phone number: 419-245-1050

D. Michael Collins: dmichael.collins@toledo.oh.gov

Phil Copeland: phillip.copeland@toledo.oh.gov

Mike Craig: mike.craig@toledo.oh.gov

Paula Hicks-Hudson: Paula.Hicks-Hudson@toledo.oh.gov

Rob Ludeman: rob.ludeman@toledo.oh.gov

Adam Martinez: adam.martinez@toledo.oh.gov

Joe McNamara: joe.mcnamara@toledo.oh.gov

Tyrone Riley: tyrone.riley@toledo.oh.gov

George Sarantou: george.sarantou@toledo.oh.gov

Steven Steel: steven.steel@toledo.oh.gov

Tom Waniewski: tom.waniewski@toledo.oh.gov

Lindsay Webb: lindsay.webb@toledo.oh.gov

Run a red light - it's for the children

Well, well, well. Imagine my surprise to learn that the City of Toledo is planning to install additional red light cameras in order to generate funds to pay for recreational programs. The cameras clearly aren't about safety, but are merely a tool to raise funds because the city just can't stop spending.

I nearly flew out of my chair when I heard Patrick McLean, Finance Director, tell Toledo City Council at their meeting today that they will install 11 additional cameras with the hopes of raising about $320,000.

Of course, this relies upon people not running the red lights.

The problem, as I've detailed previously, is that the more people get used to red light and speed cameras, the less the revenue there is from violations. Since 2009 when the city added speed cameras and negotiated a higher percentage of the fines, the revenue has steadily decreased. This means that the city, in order to continue to collect their targeted budget amounts, must constantly expand the big-brother-type surveillance.

And now, they want the additional revenue from the additional cameras to go to recreational programs - who could argue with that?!?

Can't you just see the ads now?

* Run a red light - it's for the children!

* When you run a red light, that money goes to buy eggs for the annual Easter Egg hunt. Don't let needy children go without an egg on Easter - run a red light today!

and my favorite for which I even made a poster

* Without government recreational programs, kids will turn to crime. So run a red light ... commit a crime to keep kids from becoming criminals.

Of course, this time around, they're actually admitting the cameras are to generate revenue - not for the safety of motorists, as they've claimed previously.

Remember what traffic researcher and highway safety advocate with the motorist advocacy group National Motorists Association Barnet Fagel said:

“There’s no need for cameras if intersections are safe,” explains Fagel. “Cameras document traffic engineering errors. They don’t prevent collisions, they only record them.”
...
“If an intersection is properly engineered you don’t need cameras. I feel as long as intersections are inherently unsafe they will be profitable for the camera company and the village.”

It's what I said originally, but here's an 'expert' saying the exact same thing.

So I guess there's no need for any traffic engineering studies - not that the city did any in the first place. There's no need to try all reds in every direction before the light turns green - and no need to expand the yellow light time. In fact, since this is all about revenue, they'll probably shorten the yellow light time, as they've been accused of doing in the past, just to ensure more people get a ticket for running the red light. Talk about enhancing safety.

Perhaps, as numerous towns are ending their red light programs and evidence is mounting that the cameras actually cause more accidents, it's probably a good thing that Toledo is so opening admitting that it's not about safety, but about the bottom line.

My only hope is that City Council will say no to additional red light cameras in order to fund recreational programs. But if we can't stop them from installing more cameras, maybe we can at least get them to dedicate the revenue to repair our decrepit roads.

Big Brother arrives in Toledo; smile -you're on camera!

Yesterday, I received a press release from the City of Toledo informing me of a press conference with new Toledo Police Chief Derrick Diggs. I wasn't exactly sure what was being announced, so I didn't post it. Here is what it said:

Toledo Police Chief Derrick Diggs will announce a new data driven policing model at a press conference at 3 p.m. today, December 7, 2011 on the 3rd floor the Safety Building.

The initiative involves a process for systematically collecting and analyzing data to strategically direct manpower to suppress crime in identified problem areas. The initiative also involves the utilization of the CompStat model to track progress and ensure accountability. Additionally, it will include a Real Time Crime Center that will utilize cameras as a deterrent and investigative tool for the apprehension of suspects involved in criminal behavior.

The bottom line is that Toledo wants to install a bunch of cameras around town (75) to monitor and record - well, pretty much everything. They're even considering getting some that can recognize the sound of a gunshot and then focus upon the location of the sound.

Of course, Chief Diggs says this is all about keeping us safe and moving the department from just responding to crime and then investigating it to attempting to deter or even suppress crime. While the locations of the cameras haven't been determined, they are planned for high-crime areas.

You and I know that the cameras won't really suppress crime - the criminals will just commit the crimes elsewhere.

Chief Diggs said he's modeling his plan on the cameras being used in Memphis. With relatives in Memphis, I can tell you that the cameras haven't really allowed the police to 'deter' or 'suppress' crime.

The funding for the initial purchase and set up would come from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund, the monies the department has confiscated from crimes. But there is no mention of the on-going maintenance costs and whether or not there is funding for those.

Apparently, the Real Time Crime Center would be staffed with officers to watch everything that's going on and 'respond' accordingly. But with the decrease in the number of officers we have on the streets over the last several years, some may question this plan.

It's not often I find myself in agreement with the ACLU, but they've weighed in on the plan calling it "Big Brother 24/7."

The usual claims in support of 24/7 surveillance - like the ones made in favor of red-light cameras - will be used: it will keep us safe; if we're not doing anything wrong, we won't have anything to worry about; it's for our own good; if it saves just one life.

Think about it, by the time camera hears a gunshot and zooms in on the source of the sound, you're already shot, perhaps dead. So much for "keeping you safe."

Besides, I don't care about those claims - government always makes such claims when infringing upon our liberties.

I just go back to the quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Rear-end collisions rise at red-light camera intersections

The Palm Beach Post has taken a look at the accidents in West Palm Beach following the installation of red-light cameras and found:

"Rear-end collisions more than doubled and accidents increased overall in the first 70 days of red-light cameras in West Palm Beach compared to the same period of 2009..."

This is consistent with what other communities found - that while side-impact crashes may show declines, other types of accidents increase. Strangely, Toledo Police have never provided such analysis for the public to review.

I can only wonder why it is that all these other newspapers can find the time and staff to examine the 'safety' claims, but our local daily can't be bothered?

But then, we know it's all about the money, now that Toledo is actually confiscating vehicles without an order from a court if the vehicle (not necessarily the owner) has a red-light or speed camera ticket that hasn't been paid.

COAST tries again on red-light camera ban

This just in via email:

COAST returns to Toledo with petitions to ban Red Light Cameras

Thursday, April 8, 2010 at 6:30 PM


For immediate release:
Monday, April 5, 2010 at 8:30 AM


This Thursday, COAST returns to Toledo to help local volunteers with petitions in hand to start the 2010 drive to ban Red Light and Speeding Cameras in the City of Toledo. The details of the gathering are as follows:

Cambridge Place (in west Toledo)
1821 West Alexis (West of Jackman Road in K-Mart Plaza)

Thursday, April 8, 2010 at 6:30 PM

Phone number of hall: (419) 475-6393

Last year, local volunteers with COAST assistance pursued petitions in the Glass City and gathered enough signatures, but a technical deficiency in the petitions prevented 2009 ballot access. COAST pledged to return to help in 2010 to help local volunteers, and this visit is the launch of that effort.

In 2009, at least three other cities in Ohio batted back Red Light Cameras. Pickerington residents defeated the plan with legislative action, and voters in Chillicothe and Heath, Ohio banned the cameras with ballot initiatives. In 2008, Cincinnati voters banned the pernicious and intrusive devices with a Charter Amendment.

The Toledo proposal is modeled after Cincinnati's and will effectively ban unmanned red light and speeding cameras from being enforced in City limits.


# # #

Let the legal challenges begin

I've previously stated my concerns that city council's idea to immobilize/impound vehicles with unpaid red-light/speed cameras is wrong and probably unconstitutional.

Chris Finney, from Coast, has already said he'd challenge the confiscation of property and today another attorney has said the same thing.

I heard a clip from local defense attorney Jerome Phillips on WSPD this morning stating his belief that 'taking' property without a court judgment was unconstitutional and he'd gladly represent anyone who found themselves with a booted or impounded vehicle due to unpaid camera tickets.

So while the purpose of the plan is to generate income for the City of Toledo, I cannot help wondering how much it's actually going to cost over and above the expense of the boots and the staff to attach/remove them.

Red-light/speed cameras: fundamental fallacy and Ohio's Constitution

For regular readers of this blog, you know that I am not a fan of the red light/speed cameras for multiple reasons - from the fact that they don't address the claimed safety issues of the intersections to the process that presumes guilt based upon ownership and then requires the accused to present a guilty party as the only way out.

And while I believe I've made valid arguments, both here and on WSPD when I was doing Eye On Toledo, to support my position - including quoting from the national Traffic Safety Board - nothing quite says it all as this quote from Barnet Fagel, a a traffic researcher and a highway safety advocate with motorist advocacy group the National Motorists Association:

“There’s no need for cameras if intersections are safe,” explains Fagel. “Cameras document traffic engineering errors. They don’t prevent collisions, they only record them.”
...
“If an intersection is properly engineered you don’t need cameras. I feel as long as intersections are inherently unsafe they will be profitable for the camera company and the village.”

It's what I said originally, but here's an 'expert' saying the exact same thing.

Toledo never did a traffic engineering study on any of the intersections they claimed were so unsafe that they needed red-light cameras. They did not attempt to determine the cause of the claimed safety issues in order to determine what the best solution would be. Nor did they try any of the recommended solutions (longer yellow lights, all red lights in every direction prior to the next scheduled green light, etc...) to see if a non-big-brother type of change would work.

Since they didn't actually try to address any of the claimed safety issues, many conclude (rightly, in my opinion) that the issue really isn't safety, but money. And with Toledo routinely trying to get more of a percentage of the fine money as well as increasing the fine amount, it's hard to deny.

So what we have is a company going around trying to sell jurisdictions on their product and promising a share of the proceeds if the politicians will buy into the deal. Toledo is, in effect, partnering with a private company to make profits for the company, at taxpayer expense, and then being bought off by that private company for a kickback of a marginal share of those profits. How does this not violate Article 8 of the Ohio Constitution:

O Const VIII Sec. 6 Political subdivisions to avoid financial involvement with private enterprise; mutual insurance exception

No laws shall be passed authorizing any county, city, town or township, by vote of its citizens, or otherwise, to become a stockholder in any joint stock company, corporation, or association whatever; or to raise money for, or to loan its credit to, or in aid of, any such company, corporation, or association: provided, that nothing in this section shall prevent the insuring of public buildings or property in mutual insurance associations or companies. Laws may be passed providing for the regulation of all rates charged or to be charged by any insurance company, corporation or association organized under the laws of this state, or doing any insurance business in this state for profit.

Even if you're a fan of the cameras, you should oppose them if they violate our state Constitution. If Toledo can enter this type of arrangement, what else can they do? The slippery-slope argument is certainly a valid one in Toledo, especially considering that they started with red-light cameras and then added the speed cameras when revenue began to decline.

Now all we need is a constitutional legal challenge to these arrangements.

Quotes of the Day and other tidbits

"Liberty is from God; liberties, from the devil." ~ Berthold Auerbach

"He alone deserves liberty and life who daily must win them anew." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

** I was not surprised to see that Judge Charles Doneghy's ruling sending the issue of the chairman of the Lucas County Republican Party to the Ohio Republican Party State Central Committee. The law is extremely clear that conflicts such as this are decided by the party's state central committee.

The judge ruled that the SCC must act within 30 days of his yesterday ruling to pick either Jon Stainbrook or Jeff Simpson as the chairman. From everything I'm hearing, the decision will go to Simpson.

But don't count Stainbrook out, he won't go quietly and I expect more court challenges will be filed by him or Megan Gallagher.

** Ten candidates for Lucas County Commissioner - what a great field!

In a future post, I'll be looking at each person and providing some insight on what their primary campaigns might hold. There are, of course, advantages and disadvantages for each person, but we're fortunate to have five Democrats and four Republicans vying for our votes.

** Toledo City Council didn't act on the immobilization/impoundment of vehicles with unpaid red light/speed camera violations. Instead, they want to renegotiate the contract with RedFlex, the camera provider.

And I thought this was all about safety! (sarcasm off)

Will new Toledo law violate Constitutional due process?

Well, it's official. The City of Toledo is seeking a law to either immobilize or impound vehicles with unpaid red light or speed camera tickets.

And here I thought the cameras were all about safety - not money. Apparently not.

Toledo has so many of these unpaid tickets that they're using it as an excuse for part of their budget woes. Recent news reports quote Police Chief Mike Navarre as saying the total amount due (dating back to 2000) is around $6 million, though not all of that money would go to the city. Some would go to the red-light camera company, RedFlex, which has a contract with the city to provide the cameras.

Last year, Toledo budgeted $2.5 million (more than they budgeted in 2008) in revenue from these cameras, but they only collected $874,308, leaving a significant shortfall. Of course, the fact that they over budgeted in 2008 should have given them their first clue about the problem.

They've tried a collection agency, but that's not working out too well. The problem isn't that the collection agency (a local law firm) isn't very good - it's that no court has ever issued a judgment in favor of the city for these civil fees, so people are ignoring them.

Under the current law, the photograph from the camera is prima facie evidence of a civil (not criminal) violation. The only way to appeal the violation is to request a hearing before a person hired by the city to serve as a hearing officer. The way the law is written, if the camera shows a vehicle and you are the owner, you are guilty. So when you appeal, the only way to get out of the presumption of guilt is to name another person as the driver.

It's no wonder this is a civil violation and not enforced under the traffic laws. If a person accused of hit-and-run were presumed guilty with the only way out being to present the actual offender, could you imagine how quickly various groups and citizens would be expressing their outrage? There's a reason why we have a presumption of innocence and due process procedures in the United States.

But when it comes to red light and speed camera violations, all those protections are thrown under the bus, ignored and flouted.

Now, without benefit of court adjudication, the city wants to confiscate property as a penalty for the violation.

Here is what the two ordinances relating to the immobilization/impoundment proposal say:

SECTION 5. That a new Toledo Municipal Code Subsection 313.12 (d)(6) is hereby enacted to read as follows:

“In lieu of assessing an additional penalty, pursuant to subsection (d)(5) above, the City of Toledo may (i) immobilize the vehicle by placing an immobilization device( e.g. a “boot”) on the tires of the vehicle pending the owners compliance with the Notice of Liability, or (ii) impound the vehicle, pursuant to TMC Section 303.08(a)(12). Furthermore, the owner of the vehicle shall be responsible for any outstanding fines, the fee for removal of the immobilization device (i.e., $75), and any costs associated with the impoundment of the vehicle.

and:

SUMMARY & BACKGROUND:

Toledo Municipal Code Section 303.08 provides authority for the City of Toledo Police to remove (i.e., impound) a vehicle under certain circumstances specified. Likewise, the Section provides a mechanism for an owner to redeem his or her impounded vehicle. This proposed legislation amends, specifically, Toledo Municipal Code Section 303.08(a) by enacting a new Subsection, i.e., TMC Subsection 303.08(a)(12), to include authority to impound a vehicle of an owner who has refused or failed to comply with the civil penalty imposed pursuant to the City’s automated red light and speeding photo enforcement Sections; i.e., TMC Section 313.12,et.al.

NOW, THEREFORE,

Be it ordained by the Council of the City of Toledo:

SECTION 1. That Toledo Municipal Code Chapter 303, and specifically Section 303.08(a), is hereby amended by enacting Section 303.08(a)(12) to read as follows:

“When any vehicle against which two or more notices of liability has issued, pursuant to TMC Section 313.12, and the vehicle owner, as defined by TMC Section 313.12(b)(4), has failed or refused to comply with the civil penalty assessed, but after the appeal period has expired, pursuant to TMC Section 313.12(d) (4).”

Yes, that's correct. They want to come and take your vehicle - or put a 'boot' on it, depriving you of its use - without ever having gone to court.

Your failure to cater to their desire for more income will result in the confiscation of your property.

The 5th Amendment to the Constitution states:

No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

So how is this proposed law NOT a deprivation of property without due process? You don't even have a way to appear before a judge under Toledo's current law and this new authority for the city doesn't change that fact.

Where are all the civil liberties groups on this issue? Are they even aware of the proposed law?

Chris Finney, an attorney and co-founder of COAST, Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxation, has been very vocal in opposing these cameras and might even be partially responsible for the failure of the city's budget projections.

He has advised individuals to ignore the tickets because the city has no ability to enforce them. He has also advised people that letters from attorneys threatening collection have no force unless adjudicated in a court of law. During my fill-in for Brian Wilson on WSPD yesterday, I talked to him about the plan to immobilize/impound vehicles and his response was that this was a lawsuit waiting to happen. He continued to tell people that unless they get a summons or notice from a court, the fines are unenforceable.

Obviously, he's not well-liked by the politicians, especially because he's going to mount another campaign in Toledo to repeal the law allowing cameras in the first place, with collection of signatures for the ballot measure scheduled to begin in about a month.

My hope is that individuals, attorneys and groups who believe in the Constitution and the protection of rights will vigorously oppose these two measures. Here is contact information to help you in this goal:

City Council phone: 419-245-1050

City Council emails:

phillip.copeland@toledo.oh.gov

rob.ludeman@toledo.oh.gov

joe.mcnamara@toledo.oh.gov

adam.martinez@toledo.oh.gov

george.sarantou@toledo.oh.gov

Steven.Steel@toledo.oh.gov

wilma.brown@toledo.oh.gov

dmichael.collins@toledo.oh.gov

mike.craig@toledo.oh.gov

michael.ashford@toledo.oh.gov

tom.waniewski@toledo.oh.gov

lindsay.webb@toledo.oh.gov

Another 'I told you so' on Toledo's budget

In 2008, I questioned the revenue assumptions of Mayor Carty Finkbeiner - especially the projected revenue from red-light cameras.

Item #3 from the list I sent to Finance Director John Sherburne (who never replied) was this:

3. You've doubled the number of speed cameras but the projected revenue from all those cameras is 6 times more than in 2007. Why isn't the revenue projection just double?

That was in March. By October, The Blade was reporting that the city was facing a $10 million budget shortfall for 2008:

Mr. Sherburne said the primary causes for the shortfall include:

•Income tax collections through September that were down $6.6 million.

•Overtime costs for city employees that are $2 million over projections.

•Revenue from red-light cameras that is $750,000 less than expected. (emphasis added)

•Fuel costs that are $1.5 million over budget.

But failing to learn their lessons in 2008, the city did the exact same thing in 2009. As I wrote in November 2008 (city-presented budget assumptions in bold, my comment follows):

• Red Light Camera revenue is provided for at $2.584 million for 2009. While this is the same as for 2008 it reflects an increase over actual collections for 2008.

So what makes the city think that it's going to have INCREASED collections from these cameras in 2009? Every study - even from the camera companies themselves - shows that income/revenue from the cameras decreases over time. So far, in 2008, red light/speed camera revenue is $750,000 less than expected. What evidence does the city present to document why they think they'll have 30% more income in this line item? Do they plan to add more of these cameras to get to that point? And what will happen if residents, like those in Cincinnati, pass a charter amendment to prohibit the cameras? These are the contingencies the city should think about and build into their budget projections.

Valid questions - in more ways than one - because on Friday 13ABC reported 2009 revenues from red-light cameras were were far from meeting projections.(hat-tip Lisa Renee at Glass City Jungle)

The mayor left out a very important number when writing up next year's budget. Toledo's red light cameras were projected to earn the city $2.5 million in paid fines in 2009. But in reality, that number is only $600,000.

The revenue dropped because the state forced Toledo to make the yellow lights longer by one second and Toledo increased the fine to $120-- too rich for some drivers who simply refused to pay.

Police chief Mike Navarre say unpaid fines cost Toledo $1 million. "It's a problem with photo enforcement. It's a problem with parking tickets. It's a problem with people that don't show up for court on traffic tickets."

Those unpaid fines go to collection, but Toledo is now adjusting next year's red light camera revenue at just $900,000.

Note the side comment about the state requiring the city to increase the yellow light time? Most traffic safety studies show that increasing the yellow light times and going to all red in all directions for a moment prior to the lights changing to green increases safety at intersections more than cameras do. And there was much speculation that yellow light times had been decreased at camera intersections in order to generate more money in fines. But that's another topic ...

This line item is currently $1.984 million short. They overestimated their revenue by 331%!

What's even scarier is that, even with two years of data, the city is still projecting an INCREASE in revenue from this source. If they've only collected $600,000 in 2009, what makes them think they'll collect $900,000 in 2010? That's a 50% increase!!!

Does anyone in their right mind really expect a 50% increase in ANY Toledo revenue line item?

Will City Council actually question this figure this time around? They failed to do so previously and we've got pretty much the same people asking the questions.

Perhaps Toledo's best hope for a realistic budget is our new mayor, Mike Bell, and the common sense approach he showed during the campaign. I hope he and his new administration will question these outrageous assumptions and give us a budget based in reality - rather than wished-for revenues to cover the spending they just can't seem to cut.

Group concedes red light camera issue, vows to return next year

This in via email from the We Demand A Vote/Toledo group:

STOP Red Light Cameras Committee concede this year.
The People Lose… Again.

Friends and Volunteers,

As you have undoubtedly heard by now, our petition to bring red light and traffic cameras to a vote of the people of Toledo was rejected by the City Clerk as insufficient because each circulator did not notarize their signature on each individual part-petition.

This is the declaratory statement where, under the threat of felonious election fraud, the circulator states they personally witnessed each person sign, and that each person who signed is, to the best of their knowledge, the person they purported to be and was qualified to sign, and finally the total number of signatures on that individual part-petition.

This is the second time this year the will of the people has been thwarted by the details of election law – which is not to imply details aren’t important, but the people deserve better.

Our legal team feels horrible they missed this extraneous and unnecessary step that most cities in Ohio do not require. This has only served to strengthen our resolve, and we hope next year when we issue a clarion call for patriots to retake civil liberty, you will respond.

The We Demand A Vote Coalition recognizes Toledo's unique requirement for, and regrets we did not notarize each circulator's names on the Red Light Camera petition. It is disappointing, and we apologize to all of our hard working volunteers who petitioned selflessly to put this on the ballot.

We are, however, undeterred in our resolve to bring this issue to the people. We shall not be defeated by the forces of bureaucracy, and shall return next year to give the people of Toledo the right to vote on Traffic Cameras, because despite this temporary set-back, We Demand A Vote!

COAST to submit signatures for red-light camera charter amendment today

This just in via email:

For immediate release: August 19, 2009

Volunteers turn in Toledo Red LightPetitions -- TODAY

Press Conference at 2:30 PM at City Hall Clerk of Council's office Camera

Today at 2:30 PM, volunteers from WeDemandAVote.Com/Toledo turn in petitions at Toledo City Hall for a Charter Amendment to ban the use of Red Light and Speeding Cameras in the City of Toledo. WeDemandAVote.Com/Toledo will turn in more than 8,400 signatures to the Toledo Clerk of Council. This is nearly twice the 4.625 signatures required to attain ballot access for the proposal.

COAST is proud a member of the WeDemandAVote.Com/Toledo coalition and proud partner of the many Toledoans who have together forced this issue to a vote this November.

In November of 2008, Cincinnati voters became the first in the nation to ban the use of Red Light and Speeding Cameras within City limits. Because Toledo City Council will not repeal these oppressive devices on their own, COAST came to Toledo in January to launch this drive, which has culminated in this accomplishment.

If Toledo City Council does as the Ohio Constitution requires, they will check the sufficiency of the petitions through the Lucas County Board of Elections and vote before September 3 to place the issue on this November's ballot. If they refuse, COAST's attorneys promptly will litigate to force them to do as they are required by the Constitution.

COAST's Toledo coordinator, Scott Ross said: "More than 8,400 Toledoans have demanded that the pernicious and confiscatory policies of Mayor Carty Finkbeiner and this City Council be put to a vote this November. Thanks to these volunteer circulators and signers, voters will have the chance to seize back a small part of their liberties taken by these invasive devices."

COAST's seven reasons to oppose Red Light and Speeding Cameras may be read here.

# # #