The Freedom Minute

CBS2 Reports on MRCA Stop Sign Camera Scam

David Goldstein of CBS2 in Los Angeles reports on the latest in the MRCA stop sign camera scam. Look for my comments about 3 minutes in.

July 22nd, 2011 Posted by freedomminute | Motorists Issues | no comments

Los Angeles Police Board Votes to End Red Light Camera Program

After a year of effort by us, on Tuesday June 7th, the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners voted unanimously 5-0 to end the city’s Photo Red-Light Program. This was a courageous vote by a board with diverse backgrounds, all dedicated and very competent people who spent a lot of time studying this issue. After carefully considering the issue for many months, the Board determined that the claims of improved safety at red-light camera intersections could not be proven to their satisfaction. Also of concern to the Commission members was the fact that two of the three potential vendors for a new contract are headquartered in Arizona. Last year, after Arizona passed SB1070 targeting illegal immigrants, the LA City Council voted to impose a boycott forbidding Los Angeles from entering into contracts with business headquartered in the state. Additionally, under the proposed contract, the City would have lost at least $1.5 million each year of the program.

Unless the City Council votes to assert its jurisdiction over the issue by June 17th, the Board’s decision will become final. The Council would need 10 of 15 members to support the rarely invoked procedural rule. Doing so would put the Council in the unenviable position of overriding a unanimous vote of the civilian Commission, backtracking on their support of their own Arizona Boycott, and potentially obligating the city to a contract costing millions of dollars during a time of severe budget cuts, and further outraging a public already feeling abused by the excesses of government. Furthermore, even if the Council were to take back the issue, they cannot completely overrule the Board, but simply send the matter to the Police Board for reconsideration. Considering the comments made by Board members during their debate and their unanimous vote, it is highly unlikely they would decide the matter differently on reconsideration.

Unfortunately, the camera company that would have gotten the $15 million payout of taxpayer dollars, American Traffic Solutions (ATS), has been hard at work through their lobbyists trying to get the Council to do their corporate bidding. If they are successful, it would only prove that the cynicism the public has of government is justified.

For more information, visit the website of our grassroots organization dedicated to this issue: Safer Streets L.A.

Watch my interview on NBC4 LA

July 22nd, 2011 Posted by freedomminute | Motorists Issues | no comments

Anaheim Votes to Ban Red Light Cameras

In a continuation of the national trend against the use of photo enforcement to pick the pockets of the nation’s motorists, voters in the city of Anaheim voted overwhelmingly today in favor of Proposition K which amends the city charter to ban the use of red light cameras within the city’s limits.  As has occurred each and every time the question of photo enforcement has been put before the voters, citizens solidly rejected the use of this insidious traffic enforcement scheme which wastes billions of dollars without improving public safety.  At the time of this posting, the measure to ban the cameras was being approved by 73% of voters.

In other red-light camera news, voters in Houston and Baytown, TX opted to end those cities’ red light camera programs as well.  The results of today’s elections should finally put the lie to the camera industry’s phony pronouncements that the public supports the use of red light cameras.  If this is support, I’d hate to see what opposition looks like.

For those of you who are interested, here’s the text of the Anaheim ballot measure:

Measure K: That new Section 1213 be, and the same is hereby, added to the Charter of the City of Anaheim to read as follows:

Section 1213. PROHIBITION OF AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS (RED LIGHT CAMERAS).

No ordinance shall be adopted by the City Council which would permit or authorize any red light camera or other automated traffic enforcement system in the City of Anaheim. Any ordinance adopted by the City Council in violation of this section shall be null and void.

Neither the City Council, nor any officer or employee of the City when acting in his or her official capacity, shall (i) take any action which would directly or indirectly result in the authorization, approval or installation of any red light camera or other automated traffic enforcement system in the City of Anaheim; or (ii) acquiesce or concur in any action or decision of any other governmental agency or governmental official having jurisdiction concerning such red light cameras where a protest or objection procedure is available to the City and where failure to so protest or object could result in the authorization, approval, or installation of any red light camera or other automated traffic enforcement system in the City of Anaheim; or (iii) approve, authorize, execute or enter into any agreement or understanding, or take any other action of any nature whatsoever, which would authorize, approve, or in any way facilitate or result in the installation of any red light camera or other automated traffic enforcement system in the City of Anaheim, including, but not limited to, any agreement or understanding relating to the installation of any red light camera or automated traffic enforcement system which would result in the receipt by the City of any revenue of any kind from such cameras or automated system.

The term “red light camera or other automated traffic enforcement system” as used in this section shall mean and include any automated traffic enforcement system, as that term is used in California Vehicle Code Section 21455.5, or any successor legislation thereto, which is used to enforce any provision of the California Vehicle Code.

July 22nd, 2011 Posted by freedomminute | Motorists Issues | no comments

Voting Yes on Prop 23 Won’t Harm the Environment

If you had a friend that was about to commit suicide or maybe just inflict serious harm upon himself, you’d probably try to stop him. Well Californians are about to do just that. The implementation of AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, will inflict serious harm on California and the people who live here. Voting Yes on Prop 23 is the intervention that California needs to save itself from certain injury.

First, let’s talk about AB32 and what it won’t do. AB32 won’t reduce “air pollution” as that term is generally understood. It does nothing to limit real air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, or toxic soot. These emissions that contribute to smog and other conditions related to public health are regulated under numerous separate laws, which are the strictest in the country. The only substance AB32 seeks to limit is CO2. So basically, this is a law that attempts to reduce global warming. The debate as to whether CO2 is a significant source of climate change isn’t going to be solved here, but it’s important for voters to realize that AB32 is only about global warming, not air pollution. Furthermore, even if AB32 is fully implemented, it will have no effect on worldwide global warming. AB32 seeks to reduce California’s CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. But that’s just a small fraction of California’s CO2 output. And, when compared to the worldwide output of CO2, the amount California emits is just a small fraction of 1%. On top of that, businesses that currently emit CO2 here in California may relocate to other states and continue to output the same amount of CO2, resulting in no net reduction overall. So, AB32 will have no effect on global warming and the air won’t be any cleaner.

But let’s see what AB32 would do. According to a report authored by Sanjay B. Varshney, Ph.D., dean of the College of Business Administration at California State University, Sacramento, AB32 will cost California small businesses a net loss of “more than $182.6 billion in gross state output, the equivalent of more than 1.1 million jobs, nearly $76.8 billion in labor income, and nearly $5.8 billion in indirect business taxes”. In addition, consumers would likely see a 60% increase in electricity rates and a 57% hike in natural gas rates as well as a new $500 million per year water tax. Gasoline and diesel prices will likely increase by $3.7 billion a year as well.

Prop 23 seeks to limit the damage that will be done to our economy by delaying the implementation of AB32 until California’s unemployment rate returns to 5.5% for four consecutive quarters. It does not repeal AB32, nor does it have any effect on any other environmental laws in California. California is in deep financial trouble and our economy can’t afford the additional costs that will be imposed by AB32 at this time. I urge you to vote Yes on Prop 23. But if you’re still inclined to vote no, at least now you know what your vote will mean – the loss of millions of jobs and higher energy costs with no improvement in air quality.

By the way, there’s an excellent reason that some oil companies are backing Prop 23 and it’s not because they “want to keep polluting”. As I’ve said, Prop 23 does not lessen any of California’s stringent environmental laws. Oil companies support Prop 23 because their industry, the industry that fuels virtually our entire economy, will be severely penalized under AB32 and will be forced to expend millions of dollars in unnecessary costs that will most likely be passed onto the consumer. That’s you and me, in case you hadn’t realized just who is going to pay for all this. But it’s not just oil companies that are backing Prop 23. A whole host of groups support voting yes, including such disparate entities as the Los Angeles Homeless Restoration Advisory Coalition and the Los Angeles Police Protective League. Here’s an entire list of supporters .

Finally, a word about moving to a “green economy”. While that might be a desirable goal, AB32 is not the way to get there. Making one type of energy more expensive so that less efficient forms of energy can compete is the wrong method of boosting alternative energy. If we are really serious about making renewable energy a viable alternative to fossil fuels, then we need to fund research that will make these types of energy more efficient and competitive in their own right. It’s entirely doable, especially if we don’t waste millions of dollars on an ill advised scheme to punish the use of fossil fuels.

July 22nd, 2011 Posted by freedomminute | Motorists Issues | no comments

One Good Reason to Vote Yes on Prop 19

Almost everyone agrees that our drug laws don’t work, create more problems than they solve and make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens.  Most people also recognize that marijuana prohibition makes as little sense as alcohol prohibition did.  They understand that marijuana is nowhere near as harmful as tobacco or alcohol and attempts to prohibit its use have only led to associated street violence and a huge windfall for drug cartels.  But Prop 19, the initiative that would legalize marijuana and allow local governments to tax and regulate its use, has come under attack from a variety of critics.  Most criticisms are clearly just the same old scare tactics and misinformation put forth by anti-drug zealots or those who stand to profit from marijuana’s continued prohibition (I’m talking about you, Alcohol Lobby and Prison Industrial Complex).  These attacks include the usual nonsense about marijuana being addictive or a gateway drug or that legalization “sends the wrong message” to kids.

The truth, of course, is that marijuana has never been shown to be addictive (any more so than chocolate), has never been shown to be a gateway drug, and its legalization in other countries, like Portugal, has led to a reduction in use by teenagers.  Furthermore, removing criminal penalties for the use and possession of small amounts of marijuana frees up law enforcement (and the courts) to concentrate on real crimes and real criminals.  And the ability to tax the state’s most lucrative crop would put a serious dent in our budget deficit.

So there are lots of reasons to vote Yes on 19.  But here’s the most important: If Prop 19 fails, politicians may get the mistaken belief that the majority of the public wants marijuana prohibition and our other onerous drug laws to continue unchanged.  They’ll believe that there just isn’t the popular support for reforming our broken drug policies in favor of a more sensible public health approach.  If we’re worried about sending the wrong message, this is the message we should be worried about sending.  Politicians live and die by popular opinion.  And supporting drug law reform can get you labeled as “soft on crime”, something no politician wants, unless it’s his opponent carrying the label.  But if Prop 19 passes, even if the Feds block its implementation, politicians might realize that there is popular support for doing away with drug prohibition, especially in the case of marijuana, and moving our country away from the failed drug policies we have been pursuing for decades.  That’s the message I want our elected officials to get, and it’s the main reason I’m voting Yes on Prop 19.  It’s why you should vote yes, too.

July 22nd, 2011 Posted by freedomminute | Motorists Issues | no comments

Recommendations for Nov. 2nd Ballot Measures

PROP 19 – Legalizes Marijuana Under California Law – Vote Yes

Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Allows local governments to regulate and tax the production, distribution, and sale of marijuana. Potential increased tax and fee revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually and potential correctional savings of several tens of millions of dollars annually.

While much has been reported about this initiative, there’s one very good reason to vote yes. The drug war has cost this country untold billions of dollars, ruined countless lives, enriched drug cartels, and eroded our civil liberties. And it has done nothing to reduce the use of drugs. While Prop 19 won’t fix all those problems, it is a step in the right direction. If nothing else, its passage will signal the willingness of our citizens to seriously consider ending the war on drugs, especially for drugs like marijuana which is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco and likely provides real medicinal benefits. Our elected official need political cover if they’re ever going to support meaningful drug law reforms. The passage of Prop 19 would give them that political cover.

PROP 20 - Redistricting Of Congressional Districts – Vote Yes

Transfers authority for establishing congressional districts to the recently-authorized 14-member redistricting commission comprised of Democrats, Republicans, and representatives of neither party. Takes redistricting out of the hands of politicians who have used that power to gerrymander the districts to ensure their own reelection.

Voters approved Proposition 11 in 2008 which provided for the same transfer of authority for establishing state election districts. This proposition extends that authority to the establishment of US congressional districts. When politicians have the power to draw the boundaries of their districts, they artificially adjust those boundaries to include or exclude certain groups of voters such as those of a particular political party or ethnic or social group. This results in the elected officials having an unfair advantage in future elections and virtually assures that they will have little or no real competition for their seat. Taking the power out of the hands of elected politicians is the only way to ensure that congressional district boundaries are drawn fairly and don’t give an advantage to any one political party. – Vote Yes

PROP 21 – Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge to Help Fund State Parks – Vote No

Adds $18 to the vehicle license fee each year. This $18 would be earmarked for State Park funding.

While this might seem like a good idea to offset some recent budget cutbacks, imposing this fee is a colossally bad idea. First, while it’s called a fee, it’s actually an additional tax on every vehicle registered in the state. All drivers would pay the same amount, whether they drive an old junker or a Lexus. This means the tax would fall hardest on the lowest income citizens. Furthermore, once this fee is imposed, there’s no guarantee it won’t increase every year. $18 might not be much now, but it could easily rise to $50 or $100 within the next few years. Don’t give the politicians the ability to impose this new tax on California drivers. – Vote No

PROP 22 – Prohibits the State From Borrowing Or Taking Funds Used For Transportation, Redevelopment, Or Local Government Projects And Services – Vote No

This measure reduces or eliminates the state’s authority to:
• Use state fuel tax revenues to pay debt service on state transportation bonds.
• Borrow or change the distribution of state fuel tax revenues.
• Redirect redevlopment agency property taxes to any other local government.
• Temporarily shift property taxes from cities, counties, and special districts to schools.
• Use vehicle license fee (VLF) revenues to reimburse local governments for state mandated costs.

This proposition is basically about a jurisdictional dispute between the State and local governments. Both sides make similar claims that passing the measure (or defeating it) will protect taxpayer funds from “the politicians”. Annual State and local funding is a complicated calculation and usually neither side is entirely happy with the outcome. I recommend that it’s best for voters to stay out of this issue and let our elected officials fight it out. Therefore I recommend a No vote to keep things the way they are now.

PROP 23 – Suspends Implementation of AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, Until Unemployment Drops To 5.5% or Less for Full Year – Vote Yes

Contrary to the way opponents of this initiative would like to characterize it, AB32 does not reduce “pollution”, it reduces CO2 which is not an air pollutant per se. If AB32 is implemented, it would mean the loss of millions of jobs in California. Supporters of AB32 claim that some of those jobs would be replaced with “green jobs”, but there is no guarantee those jobs will ever materialize and even if they do, they would only be a tiny fraction of the number of jobs lost. Those that support AB32 (and oppose this initiative) are asking us to favor potential jobs over jobs that currently exist. Realize that each job lost really means that an actual person who currently has a job will become unemployed. Furthermore, even if AB32 is implemented and we are actually able to reduce CO2 emissions in California, there would be no net effect on global warming since the CO2 produced by California is only a minute fraction of the CO2 produced globally and much of the CO2 we now produce would stilled be produced, only in states other than California as companies relocate to other places (and take our jobs with them). California can’t afford the loss of millions of jobs. – Vote Yes

PROP 24 – Repeals Recent Legislation That Would Allow Businesses To Lower Their Tax Liability – Vote No

In 2008 and 2009, the state legislature adjusted the way some businesses were allowed to calculate their tax liability. This was done to make California more competitive with surrounding states and keep businesses from moving to places with a lower tax rate. California imposes one of the highest tax liabilities on businesses of any state. The previous changes were an attempt to make taxes a bit more fair. Now, however, the proponents of Prop 24 want to take away those adjustments and are mischaracterizing them as a “giveaway”. Businesses are not the enemy, they are the engine that drives our economy and provide jobs to our citizens. In order to keep businesses from fleeing the state, we have to stay competitive. – Vote No

PROP 25 – Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass Budget and Budget-Related Legislation from Two-Thirds to a Simple Majority – Vote No

Critics of the Two-Thirds vote requirement to pass a budget have been claiming that this is the source of all the state’s budgetary problems. This is an absolute lie. The Two-Thirds vote requirement does make it harder to pass a budget because it makes it harder to raise taxes. This forces our legislators to look more deeply at what the state is spending and to make tough choices. That’s a good thing. Granted, the budget is often late, but that’s better than imposing crippling tax increases on out citizens. The Two-Thirds vote requirement is the only thing standing in the way of higher taxes and fees. – Vote No

PROP 26 – Requires That Certain State And Local Fees Be Approved By Two-Thirds Vote – Vote Yes

In order to get around the two-thirds vote requirement to raise taxes, the politicians have begun to call those taxes “fees”. This initiative closes that loophole. – Vote Yes

PROP 27 – Eliminates State Commission On Redistricting – Vote No

This measure is basically the opposite of Prop 20. It puts redistricting back in the hands of politicians by reversing Prop 11 which voters approved in 2008. It’s a power grab by politicians who are afraid that they will lose reelection if they actually have to compete on a level playing field. For a more detailed discussion, see the explanation of Prop 20 above. – Vote No

Here’s my condensed summary:
PROP 19 – Legalizes Marijuana – YES
PROP 20 – Redistricting – YES
PROP 21 – $18 Car Tax – NO
PROP 22 – Prohibits Funds Transfers – NO
PROP 23 – Suspends Job Killing AB32 – YES
PROP 24 – Repeals Businesses Tax Adjustment – NO
PROP 25 – Eliminates Two-Thirds Requirement – NO
PROP 26 – Requires Two-Thirds Vote to Raise Fees – YES
PROP 27 – Eliminates State Redistricting Commission – NO

July 22nd, 2011 Posted by freedomminute | Motorists Issues | no comments

LAPD Cooks the Books on Photo Red Light Enforcement Statistics

On November 9, 2009, investigative news reporter David Goldstein of the local CBS affiliate here in Los Angeles aired an expose’ on the city’s photo red light (PRL) enforcement program. The report showed that contrary to claims by the LAPD, at intersections with red light cameras accidents actually increased rather than decreased. In response, the LAPD prepared its own study. Not surprisingly, in this report by the LAPD to the L.A. City council, the LAPD claimed that the statistics used by CBS (which were provided by the LAPD) were flawed. In fact, in one section of the report is the following statement:

From 2004 through 2006, which was prior to the installation of the cameras, there were nine reported traffic fatalities, five of which were red light related that occurred at the current PRL intersections. It should be noted that there have been no red light-related fatalities at any of the intersections since April 2006 when the first cameras were activated.

Months later, in June 2010, when the City Council was debating whether or not to go out to bid on a new photo enforcement system, these same representatives from the LAPD advocated that the program not only be continued, but expanded. Their testimony included virtually the identical claim that appears in their report.

This statement is clearly intended to suggest that had photo enforcement been present, the five fatalities that occurred prior to the installation of the enforcement cameras would not have occurred and that the current system is preventing fatalities. A number of city council members seemed quite impressed with this statistic. However, on further analysis, it is clear that the above statement is misleading, and possibly intentionally so.

At the invitation of Sgt. Matt McWillie, head of the PRL Program, I reviewed the accident reports on the five fatality accidents the LAPD claims occurred prior to the installation of the current photo enforcement system. My analysis appears below and as you’ll see, none of these accidents were of the type that could reasonably be expected to be prevented by photo enforcement and therefore can’t be used as an argument for the installation of a red-light cameras. In fact, two of the five accidents were clearly not even red-light related.

Details of Fatal Accidents Used to Justify the LAPD Safety Claims

Accident #1 – 1/21/2004 Victory Blvd. and Laurel Canyon
Accident was caused by DUI, not a driver trying to beat the red light. Also, at the time of the accident, this intersection was being enforced with a photo red-light system administered by the previous vendor, ATS. This was not a fatality that occurred “prior to PRL enforcement”, but rather a fatality that occurred during PRL enforcement with a prior system. Furthermore, as this type of accident makes clear, photo enforcement cannot prevent crashes caused by drunk drivers. Unquestionably, the red-light camera had no effect on whether this drunk driver ran the red light, as is the case with virtually all serious collisions that occur when drivers enter the intersection well into the red phase due to impairment, distraction or fatigue. This accident cannot be included in the “before” statistics as it was caused by a drunk driver and occurred at an intersection that was being photo enforced with a red-light camera.

Accident #2 – 2/9/2004 Western/MLK
Accident was caused by a pedestrian under the influence of drugs j-walking a bicycle across the street late at night. Furthermore, the accident occurred 33 feet beyond the intersection, not at the intersection itself. Witnesses stated the driver entered the intersection on yellow. This was not an accident caused by a red light runner. LAPD stated that they included this as “red-light related”, because they believed that “it was possible” that the driver sped up to make it through the intersection before the light turned red, although they had no direct evidence for that assumption and the bicyclist was deemed at fault for the accident. Therefore, this accident cannot be included in the “before” statistics as it did not occur within the intersection and was not caused by red light running but rather by a pedestrian j-walking. Photo enforcement would have had no effect on preventing this accident.

Accident #3 – 6/23/2005 Beverly/Western
Pedestrian was struck in the crosswalk by a sanitation truck making a right turn from Beverly onto Western. The pedestrian was crossing Western. Witnesses claimed the truck had a green light. This is the logical conclusion as the pedestrian also would have had a green light to cross Western, accounting for his presence in the crosswalk. This accident was most likely caused by the truck driver failing to yield to the pedestrian possibly due to an obstructed view from the garbage truck. The truck driver was cited for failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk, not a red light violation. This accident cannot be included in the “before” statistics as it was not caused by red light running. Photo enforcement would have made no difference in preventing this accident.

Accident #4 – 3/5/2005 Venice/Grand
A sixteen-year-old driver ran the light long after it was red. According to statements of those involved, this accident was caused by driver inattention. This accident cannot be included in the “before” statistics as it was caused primarily by a distracted, inexperienced driver, not intentional red light running. Photo enforcement has no effect on preventing this type of accident.

Accident #5 – 4/6/2006 Manchester/Figueroa
Accident occurred just after midnight. The driver claimed she was tired and didn’t remember whether the light was red. This accident was most likely caused by driver fatigue. This accident cannot be included in the “before” statistics as it was caused by a fatigued driver, not intentional red light running. Photo enforcement has no effect on preventing this type of accident.

When the details of each accident are considered, it becomes clear to any impartial observer that using these five accidents to suggest that the City’s photo red-light program has saved lives is not intellectually honest. For example, regardless of the fact that the LAPD was fully aware that the fatality at Victory and Laurel Canyon occurred at an intersection where a red-light camera was in use at the time of the collision, the LAPD chose to categorize this accident as a “before the cameras” fatality. It was not. It was a “before the current set of cameras” fatality. An unbiased study would never have included this accident in the “before” statistical group and no reasonable argument can be made for doing so since there was a red-light camera in operation and the accident was caused by a drunk driver.

In regards to the accident involving the sanitation truck, it’s extremely unlikely that a red light violation occurred. The evidence in the accident report strongly suggests that the light was green at the time of the incident. The pedestrian and the garbage truck were both initially traveling in the same direction and it is unlikely they both ignored a red signal. Moreover, neither the driver nor the pedestrian was cited for violating the red. What most likely occurred was that the pedestrian stepped into the crosswalk on a green light and the truck driver began his right turn at approximately the same moment and just didn’t see him. An unfortunate event, but not the type of accident that can be prevented using red light cameras. When we asked why the LAPD included this accident, the officer who compiled the statistics responded that, similar to the bicyclist accident at Western and MLK, he did so because “there was a chance the light might have been red”. “Might have been” and “it was possible” aren’t the proper criteria to use when deciding whether or not to include a particular data set in a before and after study. Since the LAPD knows that there is no evidence that a red light violation occurred, neither this accident nor the bicyclist accident should have been used to suggest that red-light cameras have prevented fatalities at photo enforced intersections, yet the LAPD continues to do so.

Finally, the two accidents caused by driver fatigue and distraction occurred well into the red phase, providing further evidence that the most dangerous red-light running accidents are not due to drivers trying to beat the light and thus can’t be remedied by installing photo enforcement. The photo enforcement approach to curtailing the incidence of red-light running is solely intended to influence those drivers who willfully ignore or try to beat the red light. No one has ever suggested that red light cameras should be installed to prevent accidents caused by fatigued or distracted drivers. If the LAPD had intended to provide an honest analysis of the photo red light program, they certainly wouldn’t have included accidents caused by distraction or fatigue.

But even if accidents or fatalities have decreased at photo enforced intersections, the reduction was likely not due to the presence of red light cameras. Concurrent with the installation of the current photo red-light system, the yellow signal timing at all photo red-light intersections was increased to comply with the minimum requirements set out in California law. In addition, the LADOT instituted an all-red phase at PRL intersections as well. This, more than any other factor would likely account for any increase in safety at the city’s 32 photo enforced intersections.

So, you might ask, what incentive does the LAPD have to promote the city’s photo red light program using bogus statistics? The LAPD has been pushing red light cameras for many years. They have invested a great deal of funding, man hours, and public relations good will on the program. To be shown that, after more than a decade of costs not only to the city but to the hundreds of thousand LA drivers who have had millions of dollars extracted from them, the entire program has been for naught would be a public relations disaster.   Furthermore, the department has been touting red light cameras as a “safety program”.  Acknowledging that their efforts have not made the public any safer would be a bitter pill to swallow.  Even worse would be the admission that the driving public is now less safe, both as a direct consequence of this program and due to the lost opportunity to have implemented engineering measures that actually would have made our roads safer.

I want to make it clear, though, that I’m a strong supporter of the police in general. The vast majority of police officers do this thankless job with distinction and valor. But when the police become advocates for public policy, especially a policy that affects hundreds of thousands of citizens and costs the public millions of dollars annually, they have an obligation to be as accurate and unbiased as possible.

The police officers involved in the photo red light enforcement program may believe that they really are making the public safer. so to them, fudging on the numbers is ok. And this is why those with an inherent bias or vested interest in the outcome of a statistical analysis should never be the ones doing the study. There’s just too much temptation to cook the books.

Edit – Since this post was written, the LAPD has continued to use this bogus claim of preventing fatalities at photo enforced intersections both to the Police Commission and to the media.

Tweet

July 22nd, 2011 Posted by freedomminute | Motorists Issues | no comments

Hire an Attorney to Fight Your MRCA Ticket

As I indicated in my previous post on this subject, I believe that the MRCA is violating both the spirit and letter of California law in issuing $175 photo enforced citations at stop signs in their parks and at other locations under their jurisdiction. I have personally spoken with many otherwise law abiding citizens who have been caught up in this revenue generating ticketing scheme. I have been struck by their frustration at the way they are being treated by this particular government agency and their feeling that our elected officials have betrayed us by failing to rectify this wanton disregard for the law and any sense of fair play. Unfortunately, their ability to fight back is impaired by the cost of hiring an attorney and the time and effort involved in educating themselves about their possible legal remedies.

I am happy to report that I may have information on a solution for anyone caught in this predicament. I have had a number of lengthy discussions with attorney R. Allen Baylis about what we might be able to do to help fight back and strike a blow for justice. As you may or may not be aware, Mr. Baylis recently won a very important case in Orange County regarding the admissibility of evidence in photo enforcement cases. The decision in that case has sent shockwaves throughout the state as it will now be much more difficult for law enforcement to prosecute photo red light violations based on evidence collected by third party camera companies such as those used by the MRCA.

During our recent discussion, I asked Mr. Baylis if he might be willing to help the scores of people ticketed by the MRCA. Specifically, I explained that since the ticket was $175 and didn’t add points to the driver’s record, it was not cost effective to hire an attorney to fight it. Mr. Baylis said that if enough defendants were interested in hiring him to fight their MRCA photo tickets, he would be willing to significantly reduce his fees to make it more practical to hire him.

Here’s how this might work. Mr. Baylis would need at least 10 people willing to work with him to fight their tickets. He is aware that the ticket is $175 so he’s willing to charge less than this fine amount, which is a considerable reduction from his regular fee for fighting a traffic ticket. If more than 10 people agree to band together, he will be able to reduce his fee even further. Of course, until he knows how many people are in the group, the exact amount can’t be determined, but the fee will be set before anyone commits to hiring him. In addition, each defendant should expect to pay a $25 filing fee to appeal their case to the Superior Court. Doing the right thing and fighting back against the abuses of government sometimes comes at a price. In this case, though, I’ve tried to find a solution that will cost each individual much less than it would otherwise.

This is just a preliminary inquiry to see who might be interested in joining up to fight back against the MRCA. A response does not commit you in any way, but please give this serious consideration before expressing your interest. There will be a cost, and there will be no guarantee that he will win your case, but if anyone has a chance of beating the MRCA, I think it’s Mr. Baylis.

If you might be interested in this, please send me the following information through my contact page. If enough people respond, I will forward this information to him: contact Allen Baylis directly at:

R. Allen Baylis
9042 Garfield Ave., Suite 306
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
Phone: 714-962-0915

Mr. Baylis indicated that ideally defendants would not yet have attended their hearing, but even if they have already done that, he still should be able to help. Please note that if you have simply paid your ticket without contesting it, or if more than 20 days have elapsed since service of the final administrative order or decision and you did not file an appeal with the superior court, you will be unable to be included in this group. We are, however, still looking at the possibility of the class action suit and/or filing a case in small claims court. When I have further information about that, I will post it on this website.

I hope this offers those unjustly ticketed by the MRCA an alternative to simply rolling over and accepting the unfairness of their situation. I wish I could have found a way for everyone to fight their tickets for free, but I think this is the next best thing.

Please know that I am not soliciting clients for Mr. Baylis, nor am I being paid for passing along this information. My sole intention is to assist those who might not otherwise be able to fight their citations.

However this works out, thanks for your support of the Freedom Minute.

For the FAQ About MRCA Stop Sign Tickets, see this post.

UPDATE: Mr. Baylis has taken on a test case! The MRCA is expending a great deal of money, time, and manpower (even going so far as to fly their attorney down from San Francisco) to defend this. Imagine how quickly this scam would come to a halt if everyone started fighting their tickets in court. I will keep readers of this blog posted as to the outcome of this case.

July 22nd, 2011 Posted by freedomminute | Motorists Issues | no comments

FAQ About MRCA Stop Sign Tickets

First, if you haven’t already done so, read my post The $100 Stop Sign Scam about the MRCA issuing tickets at stop signs in their parks. Then, come back here to read about what you can do if you have been issued one of these tickets. Please note that I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice.

Who is the MRCA?
The Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) is a “Joint Powers Agency” (a local government agency) which manages the parklands of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy as well as the Conejo and Rancho Simi Parks and Recreation Districts. As a government agency, the MRCA may exercise the common powers granted to its member entities by the State of California. It may not, however, exercise any powers not granted to its member entities or that conflict with State or Federal law. You can find their website here.

Does the MRCA have the authority to issue citations?
As a Joint Powers Agency, the MRCA is permitted create those ordinances which its member entities would be permitted to create. In this case, the MRCA has created an ordinance establishing rules and regulations for the use of the parklands under its control and the penalties for the violation of those rules. California law permits local agencies to exercise “police powers” and charge citizens with having committing certain crimes; generally misdemeanors or infractions. The law also permits local agencies to issue “administrative citations” rather than charge someone with an infraction.

So what’s an administrative citation?
Without getting too technical, an administrative citation is a lesser charge that carries no criminal penalties, only civil penalties, meaning just a monetary fine. Parking tickets are a form of administrative citation.

I got a ticket mailed from the MRCA claiming I ran a stop sign. What kind of ticket is this?
This is an administrative citation that carries no criminal penalties and no potential to put points on your license. You are being cited for violating the park rules, one of which is that you must obey all signs. The penalty that the MRCA imposes for this is $175.

But isn’t running a stop sign a violation of the Vehicle Code?
Yes. But you are not being charged under the vehicle code. You are being charged with violating park rules. The MRCA has set the park rules, set the penalties for violating those rules, set the conditions under which they can charge you with violating the rules, and set the rules for how you can defend yourself when you are charged with violating the rules.

Is that fair?
It doesn’t seem fair to me, or to a lot of other people who have looked into this issue. But whether or not it’s fair, the real question is, is it legal?

Ok, is it legal?
The MRCA, not surprisingly, claims that it is. And, using taxpayer funds, they’ve hired the law firm of Richards, Watson, & Gershon to come up with a legal rationale for this position. On the other hand, many other attorneys have offered numerous legal arguments as to why the actions of the MRCA are not permitted under State law. The bottom line is that regardless of any lawyer’s or layperson’s opinion, the MRCA will continue to issue these citations until either a court of law rules that their actions are impermissible or state lawmakers amend California law to make it clear that what the MRCA is doing is not allowed.

What are some of the legal arguments that the MRCA is acting illegally?
The answer to that question is quite detailed and is beyond the scope of this FAQ. We are preparing a document focusing on that subject alone and will link to it here once it is completed. In general, though, the arguments against the MRCA are the following:

1. The MRCA ordinance is pre-empted by state law, specifically the California Vehicle Code, which does not permit the use of automated enforcement at stop signs.
2. The MRCA may not use automated enforcement for violations of its ordinances because Public Resources Code 5786.17 which gives parks districts authority to issue citations (and which the MRCA uses to claim its authority to do so) specifies that those citations may only be issued when the violation is committed in the presence of a uniformed employee issuing the citation.
3. The MRCA may not issue administrative citations in excess of $100.00 because Government Code 53069.4 which authorizes local agencies to issue administrative citations (and which the MRCA uses to claim its authority to do so) specifically limits these citations to $100.00.

There are other legal objections to the MRCA’s authority to use automated ticking cameras to issue citations at stop signs, but these are the most notable.

The video doesn’t show who the driver is. Is the citation valid without them identifying the driver?
If you were being charged under the rules of the vehicle code, the answer would be no. However, the MRCA is citing you under their own ordinance which makes the vehicle owner responsible for the violation, not the driver. See above where we discuss how the MRCA makes up all the rules.

Can I just ignore this ticket?
While we can’t give legal advice, here’s what may happen if you simply ignore this ticket. First, the MRCA will add interest and penalties to the violation (again according to their own rules). Then, they will likely send your info to a collection agency who will try to collect from you. The collection agency may also report the debt to the credit reporting agencies and it may show up on your credit report. This is similar to what happens when you don’t pay a parking ticket. However, we have some anecdotal information from readers of this blog that when they contacted the collection agency and stated that the debt wasn’t valid and that they would sue if the debt got reported to the credit reporting agencies, they never heard from the collection agency again and the debt never showed up on their credit report. We can not independently confirm that this is correct information. If we receive additional information on this subject, we will list it here.

How can I fight this ticket?
The procedure for contesting the ticket is spelled out on the MRCA website. Basically, you must respond by the due date, pay the fine, and request a hearing at their location in Franklin Canyon Park off Mulholland Drive in Beverly Hills. Diana Hartman administers the citation program. Her number is 310-858-7272 ext. 103.

Do I have a chance at beating the ticket at the hearing?
Most likely, no. The hearing will be conducted by one of their employees whose job it is to find as many people guilty and collect as much revenue from this program as possible. If the employee found a large number of citizens not guilty, she would soon be out of a job. Therefore, unless you can prove that you were not the owner of the vehicle or that you clearly did come to stop at the stop sign, you are unlikely to prevail. Arguments such as “no one was put in danger”, or you slowed down but didn’t quite stop, or you can’t afford to pay, or the whole thing is a scam (which it is), are unlikely to get you anywhere.

What about the legal arguments you mentioned above?
Again, these arguments are unlikely to sway the hearing officer to find you not guilty. The MRCA has heard them all before and has rejected them. They don’t care how strong or well researched your legal argument is. They either really believe that they are correct or they don’t care if they’re not.

So why should I bother fighting this?
Two reasons. First, why give them your money without making them work for it. It costs them time and money to conduct these hearings and if enough people fought them, the program would be much less profitable. Plus, it’s the principle of the thing. I personally believe that when you are treated unfairly, especially by the government, you fight back, even when there is little hope of success. Second, if/when you are found guilty in the administrative hearing, you can appeal the decision to an actual court with an actual judge. But, if you don’t go to the hearing, you can’t appeal.

What’s the procedure for appealing to superior court?
Within 20 days of being served with the final decision from the hearing officer, you can file an appeal with the superior court. There is a $25 fee to appeal, but if you win, you get back your $175 fine plus the $25 fee. Of course, if you lose then you are out another $25. Note that the 20 day window to appeal may begin on the day the notice of final decision is mailed to you (if you don’t receive it at the hearing), not the day you actually receive it. Therefore, the best thing to do if you want to appeal is to file the paperwork with the court as soon as you receive your notice. If you miss the 20 day window, even if it is by one day, your appeal will be denied.

What’s the chance of beating the ticket in superior court?
Not great, but a whole lot better than at the administrative hearing. Note that this is a whole new trial, what happened at the hearing doesn’t count – although the file from the hearing will be part of the court record and the judge can refer to it. This is the time when you want to make all your legal objections to the citation. These objections would be of two kinds. First, the ordinance and ticketing program are illegal according to state law. (See the limited legal arguments above.) Second, you’d want to make legal objections to the introduction of the photo evidence and other “due process” arguments. There is some recent case law here in California that should make using photo enforcement evidence much more difficult for the MRCA, so getting the photo evidence tossed out is entirely possible. The caveat here is that these are fairly complicated arguments to make and while it’s not impossible for you to handle your case on your own, you will have a much better chance if you are represented by an attorney at this stage. Of course, attorneys cost money; likely more than the $175 fine. But don’t despair, there may be a solution for you. Read my post “Hire an Attorney to Fight Your MRCA Ticket”, for more information. If you decide you want to fight this on your own, let me know and I’ll try to help you as best as I can. Remember, though, that I am not an attorney and can’t give legal advice, just info on how you can help yourself.

What happens if I’m found guilty in superior court?
All is still not lost, you can appeal further – to the Appellate Court and then on to the California Supreme Court if necessary. The process for that is beyond the scope of this FAQ, but do know that it will be an option for you if you do things right in your superior court trial. This is another reason why having an attorney represent you is a good idea – to preserve your ability to appeal should you lose in your original trial. Again, it’s not impossible for you to do it all yourself (I have) but it will take a great deal of time and study to learn what you need to do. The good thing is that there are no additional fees to appeal your case beyond superior court.

What about this class action suit I’ve been hearing about?
At this point, the attorney, Michael Braun of the Braun Law Group has filed a case against the MRCA. There is a hearing in mid September. No class has been certified yet, meaning that there’s no ruling as to who can be part of the group that is suing (the class). When I have more information, I will pass it along. It is possible that if you pay your fine or have paid, that you will get your money back if (1) you qualify to be part of the suit and (2) the suit is successful. Those are two big “ifs” but hopefully that is exactly what will happen for the vast majority of people who have been ripped off by the MRCA.

Is there anything else I can do?
David Goldstein of Channel 2 news here in Los Angeles is considering doing a story about this. You can contact him at djgoldstein@cbs.com and tell him your story. Who knows, if enough people hear about this abuse of power, perhaps our legislators will actually do their jobs and reign in this rogue agency. Edit: The TV expose’ aired on Channel 2 here in Los Angeles in mid September. You can view it here.

Feel free to post additional questions in the comments section. Also, if you feel that this has been helpful, consider making a donation through the paypal link in the sidebar. It’s absolutely not required, but helps me to continue doing this work. Also, sign up for my newsletter and check the box for MRCA Alerts so you can get the most up-to-date and breaking news about legislation and court challenges.

July 22nd, 2011 Posted by freedomminute | Motorists Issues | no comments

Welcome Red Eye Radio Listeners

A hearty welcome to Doug McIntyre’s Red Eye Radio audience. Like you, I’m a big fan of Doug and am honored to be a guest on his show. Check back here for detailed information on the topics we’ve been discussing and feel free to shoot me an email from the contact page . And don’t forget to subscribe to email or RSS updates so you always know when I’ve posted something new.

July 22nd, 2011 Posted by freedomminute | Motorists Issues | no comments