Here you can find earlier information on the Baytown red light camera issue. See our home page for the latest info.
PLEASE DONATE!
We need your support, we are about to do a massive campaign which can be very expensive, all funds collected will be used to fight red light cameras. Donations of $10 or more get a bumper sticker, $50 or more gets a T-Shirt, please be sure to include your address and shirt size, and finance laws require us to record your occupation so please include this in your payment otherwise it will have to be returned. You can paypal to baytownredlightcamera@yahoo.com or mail to PO box 7064 Baytown, TX 77522. Please note donations must be reported to the state according to finance campaign laws and donations will be part of the public record.
CHECK OUT OUR NEW FORUM
http://myforum.saferbaytown.com
2-19-10
NO DEAL!
Ø Ensure that yellow light timing conforms to IT standards. In order to ensure that the benefit of the doubt goes to the driver, the Council agrees that we will establish the timing to reflect the guidance of ITE and round that number up to the nearest .5 second.
Ø Give lenience to Right on Red. Not looking to totally waive violations or enforcement; but also not looking for a full stop. Maybe a less than 2-3 mph roll through ( California stop) Council has directed us to keep the current process, however, reinforce to the reviewers that is there is any doubt that the driver gets the benefit of that doubt.
Ø Provide some kind of time cushion on yellow lights similar to the 4-5 mph lenience on speeding tickets. 0.5 second cushion mentioned. See 1st bullet.
Ø Freeze on installing additional red light cameras; specifically mentioning Phase 3. We are not proceeding beyond those signals already designed and installed until further notice.
Ø Creation of a Citizen Advisory Panel where citizen representatives can hear appeals or review citations. Mentioned review process after Judge ruling. Will establish a citizen’s advisory group to oversee program but not serve as an appellate authority.
Ø Refund previous penalties based on concerns with yellow light timing less than IT standards/calculation. No
Ø Adopt standards in new legislation even if not required. Yes regarding pre-installation traffic analysis/engineering requirements for any proposed locations in addition to the 11 installations that were recommended by the VIMS analysis in June 2009. This VIMS analysis resulted in the construction described as Phases two, three and four. (This new standard also prohibits per-ticket fees to camera operators and other reporting requirements which we are still considering but have not committed to)
Ø Negotiate with ATS to accept a monthly fee from the City to operate the system instead of per ticket revenue. No
Ø Desire for Council to vote Yes/No on whether they want red light cameras eliminated. Already done in several votes adopting and increasing the use of the program.
Thank you for getting back to me, I have a couple of questions on the responses;
On the issue of right on red the response was "Council has directed us to keep the current process, however, reinforce to the reviewers that is there is any doubt that the driver gets the benefit of that doubt." My question is how would there be a "benefit of the doubt"? How would the new directive be practically different from what is happening now? Since inception we have directed the Police Department reviewers to give drivers the benefit of the doubt if their intent was to stop rather than just roll through the turn. In any case we intend to reinforce those directions.
On the Freeze the response was; "We are not proceeding beyond those signals already designed and installed until further notice." Does that mean that phase 3 and 4 will not be installed? Or in plain language, is the intersection at Garth and Crosby Cedar Bayou Lynchburg the last intersection to receive cameras? Also, what would have to happen to proceed with installing more cameras? Would it take a vote by council? Phase three is currently under review by TxDOT and will proceed when the TxDOT permit is received. Phase Four ( Alexander Drive ) would not be installed. The process to install additional cameras after Phase three would require a vote by City Council.
On The citizen's advisory panel point, what exactly would the power of the panel be? Would it just be a review and to offer recommendations? They would have the ability to advise staff and Council and make policy recommendations to Council. What teeth would they have? Whatever Council sees as appropriate.
On the point of refunds. Am I to understand that the council is also unwilling to offer any refund process for violations even those issued with a yellow change interval at Garth and Baker of 3 seconds when Mr Hamilton claims they were actually set at 4 seconds? (I have the email) Which would be a traffic signal device operating in a manner other than what was intended? [/B] Yes
On the point of adopting the standards of the 2007 legislation would this also include the requirement that an engineering study be done? The VIMS study is not an engineering study, the state has a form for the standards of the engineering study that has to be provided to TXDOT and filled out by a qualified traffic engineer. This would only apply to intersections that might be considered after Phase three. Also, in one section you mention that you are considering with the new standards adopting a fee system for ATS not based on per ticket, but in the next point asking to do this the answer was a blunt "no". The Council did discuss a fee system but decided not to support it. Is that the same issue or am I misreading something? Same issue.
On the re vote on the camera issue, am I to understand that every council member is going on record as saying their current position is the same as when they voted to install the cameras and to extend the cotracts? That essentially a new vote is not necessary because their vote will not have changed? Council doesn’t feel a new vote is necessary because their record on previous votes is clear.
2-2-10
We need your input. The city has reached out to me to figure out what if anything they can do to enact strict reforms on the red light camera program. The intent would be to give safe drivers every benefit of the doubt for violations while still penalizing the worst offenders. I told the council that I would put the possible changes up for our supporters to review and respond. Please review these changes and offer me your input on these potential changes. It is important to consider that these are only possible solutions and if they are all implemented there would still be numerous problems that we still object to such as; constitutional issues of equal protection and due process, the worst offenders would still face no criminal prosecution or any penalty for ignoring the violation notices . Also, it would not address the safety issue of people slamming on thier brakes to avoid a ticket risking more accidents. We are also continuing with our petition effort as many of our supporters tell us that regardless of any reforms they want a vote on the cameras. Please email me at baytownredlightcamera@yahoo.com with your input, I will be reviewing all responses and sharing them with the city to discuss recommendations. What I need to know from you is what do you think of the proposed changes and would you still support a vote to ban the cameras even if all changes were implemented. Any other comments are welcome. Some of the proposed changes we discussed are;
Ensuring that all camera monitored intersections conform to the ITE minimum yellow change interval standards and allow a slight grace time before a violation will be issued.
Reduce the amount of right on red violations for "California" stops for drivers going through the intersection at less than a low speed such as 3mph.
Set up a citizen's advisory panel as an oversight of the program and to recommend policies and procedures.
A freeze on installing any more cameras not already installed and operational.
Offer refunds for those ticketed under the short yellow timing.
Renegotiate with the camera company to have them paid a monthly fee instead of a % of every ticket issued and collected.
01-06-09
NEW PETITIONS READY TO SIGN
We need you again. We have proposed new petition language that conforms to all the requirements for a valid petition. While we believe our initial petition is valid we are willing to do whatever we need to do to get this issue on the ballot. If you signed the petition before we need you to sign again. If you haven't signed before now is the time! Please stop by one of our petition locations to sign the new petition. We also will have volunteers coming to your neighborhood soon, please watch for them. If you want to help gather signatures please contact me for instructions.
WE DEMAND A VOTE!
One day after accepting the petition from the people demanding a vote on the red light cameras the city has rejected the petition. They claim our petition is invalid. We don't think the will of the people asking for a vote can be invalid. The overriding principle of a petition is to have the will of the people done. The city knows that this unpopular program will never survive a public vote and will do ANYTHING to make sure you don't get a say on it. See the actual language of the initiative section of the city municipal code below. Note that the people can propose "any ordinance" by petition. We are considering our legal options at this time and will decide what our next steps will be soon. Be sure to contact your council member here; http://www.baytown.org/contact/council-members.htm let them know you demand a vote and that their decision on this matter will influence your vote during their re election bids. The city council can call a vote to place the issue on the ballot or demand the petition for their review if they want to. Ultimately the responsibility rests on the council members. Ask them to do the right thing.
here is the language of the city municipal code governing initiative petitions;
Sec. 97. Power of initiative.
The electors shall have power to propose any ordinance except an ordinance appropriating money or authorizing the levy of taxes, and to adopt or reject the same at the polls, such power being known as the initiative. Any initiative ordinance may be submitted to the council by a petition signed by qualified electors of the city equal in number to at least twenty-five percent of the number of votes cast at the last regular municipal election at which at least two candidates ran for mayor.
12-20-2009
Proof the city is deliberately misleading the press and the people in their statements about the effectiveness of the red light camera program.
Mayor DonCarlos and other council members have been claiming that accidents at camera controlled intersections have gone down "20-40%" and there have been "no fatalities" since they went up. Sounds pretty impressive right? But how are they getting these numbers and what do they really mean? This is bargraph that the head of the redlight camera program gave to the city council when I addressed them this past July;
Seems pretty impressive right? Looking at this you might even convince the most skeptical that the cameras make a difference. Here is where they deliberately mislead us. There is no additional documentation here that discloses that the "before" and "after" times are of unequal months! The data for the "before" period covers 18 months, but the "after" period only covers 12 months! (See the raw data documents at our links and resources page). Of course the numbers will look better afterwards when you give yourself a 6 month advantage! The person that gave this to the council gave them a misleading document and the mayor and the council have repeated this fraud and never bothered to ask questions or crunch the numbers themselves. Why? Because they have all bought into the sales pitch from the for profit camera company and don't want to admit they made a mistake. Now more cameras are going up based on this fraud, all because they are basing their decisions on deliberately misleading information.
What about the claim that there have been no fatalities at these intersections since the cameras went up. Well, that is true, but it is misleading as well, as it implies that there were fatalities at these intersections before and when the cameras went up there were no more fatalities because of the cameras. So what's the truth? The truth is that for 2 years before the cameras went up there were no fatalities at any of these intersections! You have to go back to 2005 to find a fatality at any of these intersections. But where do we see the most recent fatality? Garth at Crosby Cedar Bayou Lynchburg in 2007. Well surely this would have been one of the first cameras to go up right? NO! There is still no camera at this intersection where there was the only recent fatality! Does that make sense? Does that sound like all they are concerned about is saving lives? Here is the scan of the fatality report from BPD, see for yourself.
12-29-2009
The day has come! We turned in our petition today with over 1300 signatures! but our fight to hold the city accountable and remove the cameras has just started. The city has given every indication they intend to invalidate our petition and ignore the will of the people. Even now the city is putting up more cameras even though they know we want a vote on them. The next step is to wait for the city clerk to certify we have enough signatures and pass the petition to the city council for their review. We still need your help, please contact your council member to urge them to pass the petition and demand a vote! You can see who your council member is here,
http://www.baytown.org/contact/council-members.htm
You can also see the baytown sun article including information on the descrepencies in the accident data here,
http://baytownsun.com/story/48984
12-08-09
It's official, the city public information officer, Patti Jett, confirmed to me by phone today that the city will not comment on the request I sent in asking for a statement on who authorized the signal timing change at Garth and Baker, who requested changing the speed limit to 40mph and back again to 45mph, what the procedure for doing so is and if it was followed and whether or not the city is now adopting the ITE standards for yellow change interval timing. The city officially thinks you don't deserve to know the answers to these questions. Again we see proof that the city thinks they don't have to answer to the people, again we see the blatant arrogance when they get caught redhanded! See the full details on our "city statements" page.
11-22-09
City of Baytown plays more red light camera games.
After Mr Leiper emailed me that the city deliberately lowered the yellow change timing on southbound Garth at West baker from 4.5 seconds to 4.0 seconds, (see earlier post below from 11-12-09), and telling me that Garth was actually a 40mph approach which means the 4.0 second light was appropriate for the 40mph approach, they replaced the 40mph sign with a 45mph sign and raised the signal timing to the previous 4.5 seconds required for a 45mph road! What happened to the statement that this was actually 40mph not 45? What happened to the statement that the lone 40mph sign was an "additional" sign? Why does the city continue to get caught breaking the law and profiting from it, but only when they get caught make the proper corrections silently while denying they ever did anything wrong? Is this the attitude and methods you want from your city leaders? See the before and after photos of this sign.
BEFORE AFTER
CITY PAYS $20,000 OF YOUR TAX DOLLARS IN HUSH MONEY!
On July 3rd of this year I went to the press with the information that the city clerk had provided me with the checking account numbers and routing numbers of anyone that paid their red light camera fines with a personal check. Late in July the city clerk resigned in good standing. The city has been fighting the details of Kaythie Darnell's severence agreement, the attorney general finally ordered them to release the information. The details are SHOCKING! Apparently, in a secret agreement between the city manager Gary Brumback and former city clerk Kaythie Darnell, Darnell was provided 4 months of salary totalling over $19,000 and 4 months of benefits combined to be well over $20,000 of YOUR money. Why? To make sure Ms. Darnell never discussed the circumstances of her "voluntary" resignation, and would participate in any future lawsuits regarding her release of private information! Usually a city employee that releases sensitive information is fired on the spot. In this case the employee was paid to SHUT UP about it and was allowed to resign and get a good reference to any prospective new employers! How much power does the city manager have to make this agreement? Did the council know about this? Did the city attorney know about it? Read the full details in our forums http://myforum.saferbaytown.com. A copy of the agreement and the paycheck showing Darnell received the money is HERE.
11-10-2009
Latest City Abuse! Speed limits lowered to keep illegally short yellow lights!
Update 11-12-2009
response from the city;
"Thank you for your question about the signal timing at Garth and Baker. Please be advised that your statement that “Garth is a 45 mph approach” is incorrect, as such approach is actually 40 mph. The duration of the yellow light was set to 4.0 seconds in May 2009, reset to 4.5 seconds in June, and reset again to 4.0 seconds in July, which is appropriate for the 40MPH approach.
To avoid any confusion about the speed limit of the intersection, we have installed an additional speed limit sign on southbound Garth in front of the Kroger shopping center. We hope this additional sign will clarify the proper speed limit to all drivers .
Bob Leiper
Deputy City Manager"
Now, Keep in mind that when the city was caught with illegally short yellow lights at this same intersection earlier this year they claim the lights were set at 4 seconds but they were going off at around 3 seconds for some unknown reason. That is why they bumped it up to 4.5 seconds to give a cushion because the signal controls are SO OLD they aren't that accurate. But now, without telling us they fixed any problems with the lights they ADMIT they lowered it back to 4.0 seconds! There is no legitimate reason to lower that yellow change interval by a half second. Clearly they were not getting the amount of violations they wanted to at 4.5 seconds. They know the lower the time the more revenue they get. Note the city manager also uses the exact same argument that they once dismissed to defend the timing, that it is appropriate based on the speed! When the timing was too short at 3 seconds and I argued that the speed dictated a longer yellow change and all violations issued at less than 3.9 seconds should be thrown out and tickets refunded they claimed that speed didn't matter and that any light at 3 seconds is long enough! Note Mr Leiper also claims this brand new sign is an "additional" sign for the 40mph speed limit. Watch the video and you can see this is the ONLY 40mph sign there, how can it be "additional" if it is the only one????? Legally the speed limit is the last posted speed limit, which means that this section was legally 45mph before they decided to LOWER it to 40mph to avoid setting the yellow change interval to a legal time! That means any violations issued from the time the light was lowered to 4.0 seconds until they changed the speed limit to 40mph is because of an ILLEGALLY short yellow time and should be dismissed! Is this how we want our city leaders to act? Is this what they do in our best interests? Please feel free to contact the city to let them know what you think about this game they are playing!
ANYONE THAT GOT A RED LIGHT VIOLATION ON THIS SECTION OF GARTH ROAD NEEDS TO DISPUTE THEIR TICKET, CONTACT ME FOR HELP WITH THAT!
11-17-09 UPDATE! PROOF GARTH ROAD SOUTHBOUND HAS ALWAYS BEEN 45MPH FROM THE CITY'S OWN REPORT! PROOF Mr. Leiper is not telling the truth in his statement to me.
Watch the video below to see proof that the new 40mph sign is not an "additional sign" and that the same stretch of road going away from the cameras has a higher posted speed limit.
