Very good citizen journalism.  Taking this further will require the power to compel evidence and take testimony under oath.  The city isn’t going to investigate itself and neither the State AG nor the State Auditor have authority, jurisdiction or will to intervene.  In the ongoing scandals at WWU, the State Auditor refused to get involved in complaints of embezzlement and the AG’s office was active in the coverup.

Pike and the council committed the city to a contract with ATS.  It’s not at all clear that citizens have any legal standing to intervene.  So this may just slither into a situation where nobody gets what they want. 

I suppose the council could enact a specific business tax that would make ATS pack up and leave, just as years ago they created an absurd “adult entertainment” ordinance to prevent a business from opening.

Thanks to the guest writers for your research efforts and for publishing this article.  I have a quick question I hope you can answer:

On page 11 of the FAST report (pg 14 of the pdf), the city claims, “Since 2005, there have been 223 serious intersection accidents due to the running of red lights, involving 457 vehicles and nearly 100 serious injuries.”

That’s a very specific claim and appears to provide the ‘data’ proving a serious safety problem.  It seems TSC asked the city to provide the details of these accidents, but the city refused. 

- Is my understanding correct? 
- Does your group believe the city’s claim about 223 accidents is not factual? 
- Do you know who actually prepared the FAST report for the city?  Have you spoken with the report’s author?

Though not directly related to the red-light camera issue at hand, the FAST report itself indicates the city has failed to appreciate the true reasons why its “financial well-being is being eroded.”  According to the report (p. 1, Section I: Purpose), “the City of Bellingham’s financial well-being was being eroded by the national recession.”  In other words, without growth, the city’s finances are not sustainable.

The real question is: Why is the city’s financial well being so dependent upon growth?  Has the city become addicted to the fresh new cash inflows that growth provides?  Has the city failed to consider the actual long-term costs of growth and to recognize that the costs of growth continue long after the new cash inflows stop?  Is it possible to establish a city government that is sustainable under a steady state economy?

This is not the venue for going into details, but suffice it to say that unless the city establishes a policy to ensure that growth pays its own way, the city’s financial well-being will forever be subject to the whims of economic booms and busts.  By establishing the use of impact fees, the Growth Management Act (GMA) adopted the state legislature’s intent “that new growth and development pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve new growth and development.” RCW 82.02.050(1)(b)

It’s clear that impact fees which cover the FULL proportionate share of these costs is necessary in order to achieve sustainability.  Unfortunately, FAST members rejected the idea of increasing impact fees so that costs for new roads, parks, and fire-fighting equipment are fully recovered. Currently, the general fund (through property and other taxes) subsidizes substantially more than half of these growth costs. 

There are many myths about the benefits of growth, but the underlying question is: “Is growth making our community better or just bigger?”

For those interested in more information, consider reading Eben Fodor’s “Better, Not Bigger: How to Take Control of Urban Growth and Improve Your Community.”

http://wcls.bibliocommons.com/item/show/562163044_better_not_bigger

I posted the comment below to Paul de Armond’s article on the camera issue and the election results that appeared on 19 Nov.  The comment is more relevant to this discussion, so I am repeating it below.  Parts of the initiative seemed more punitive in nature, e.g., putting a limit on the fines and requiring a re-affirmation of future council actions on traffic cameras.  Given the excellent work that went into this article and the shenanigans it exposes, the likelihood of any city council and any mayor to engage in future red-light camera adventurism is slight. 

“What bothered me most about the camera initiative issue was the conflating of several subjects into the one initiative.  To remind folks, here is the language of the initiative:

City of Bellingham Initiative No. 2011-
01 concerns automated traffic safety
cameras. This measure would require
the removal of any automated cameras
used to issue tickets for stoplight,
railroad crossing, and school zone
violations installed under a 2010
ordinance and prohibit the installation
of such cameras to issue tickets,
unless approved by City Council and a
majority of voters at an election, and
limit the penalty to the lowest parking
ticket fine.

The promoters were asking for agreement on four different issues in the same initiative, which pushed me to vote against it in its entirety.  One aspect was to remove any camera installed under the 2010 agreement.  Second, was to require city council approval of any such cameras in the future.  Third was to require voter re-affirmation of any city council approval of such cameras.  And fourth was a limitation on the fine as a result of a camera produced infraction.  This has to have been one of the most poorly worded and constructed initiatives I have ever read and my hat goes off to the creator(s) who surely had to be a committee that was an offshoot of the builders’ conclave of the Tower of Babel.

I am not opposed to red-light or speed cameras.  I am opposed to the government privatizing the effort as would have been done here.  I think a simple council vote should suffice to pass a law.  If we don’t want our city council to pass laws without another vote from the populace, then we can go directly to citizen vote on any number of issues - pick your favorite.  That will keep the auditor busy and provide plenty of overtime pay to boot.  I also see no reason to limit the fine on these infractions.  Red-light running and speeding in school zones are particularly dangerous offenses and to equate them with a parking ticket is risible.

I am thankful that this initiative essentially carried no weight, except as advisory in nature, because nobody can ever know precisely what one was actually voting for or against.”

I did not pay much attention to the specifics of the Bellingham mayor race.  Where is Linville on this issue?  Did she ever come out with a clear statement or did she avoid it so Pike took all of the heat?

This did appear to be an article based upon some data plus a few interpretations of it, based upon perceptions.
I doubt the initiative accomplished much except for substantial negative advertising, and is certainly advisory in nature.
The City’s financial problems aren’t necessarily based upon the definition of ‘growth’ advanced by Fodor, who flatly states that growth doesn’t pay for itself, regardless of impact fees.
Rather, the decline in local spending on other consumables & non-consumables is likely more reflected in lower sales, B&O and utility taxes collected on business activity, plus the lower interest earned on a number of large funds the City maintains, like water, sewer, reserves, etc.

I keep hoping that concerned citizens would also select recognized, long term problems upon which to focus their attention, like preserving our Reservoir, redeveloping our waterfront and the like.
But, I suspect folks may find smaller issues -like the red light cameras- easier targets because these are often more amenable to popular solutions, and not nearly as daunting as big, complex issues that have lots of moving parts and require constant attention over long periods of time.
If this is true, I can certainly understand it.

Larry,

You’re right; the FAST report (which none of us knew about until several months ago) does have some broad-sweeping traffic collision data for the entire city regarding red-light running. We do not suggest that information isn’t factual. But it raises more questions than it answers. Where are the most collisions? Are we installing the cameras where we are seeing the most collisions, or the worst collisions? If there were 100 “serious collisions”, why are we installing a camera at SR 539 and Telegraph Road, where there are absolutely no injury red-light running collisions, and only one red-light related fender bender in five years?

The city did not refuse to provide crash data at the six intersections in question, they just could not provide a through analysis of the problem, what actions had been taken before deciding on cameras and how the four intersections and two school zones were chosen over other intersections across the city.

We would refer you back to the section of our article that starts with “According to the Federal Highway Administration”. The FHWA, recommends “once problem intersections are identified, it is advisable that a traffic engineer be called upon to review the intersection and approach geometry, signal timing details, and other relevant engineering features to ensure that the red-light running problem is behavioral and not the result of an engineering shortcoming. Cameras should be considered/installed only after engineering solutions have been proven ineffective where there is a red-light running problem.”

The public expected and deserved to see a thorough investigation of the intersections by engineers, and there should have been some documentation of this being done. We waited and waited, and then received nothing through public disclosure that showed that any real review/research had been completed, and the 115 pages of emails show that there wasn’t really much discussion about safety whatsoever.

And likewise, we’ve seen nothing of substance from a single licensed traffic engineer that works for the city. This should concern folks. In Mulketio, ATS’ Kroske had some heartburn after an email exchange with a real traffic engineer. Note that he isn’t angry about the safety of the community, only the project being “torpedoed”:

“I cannot believe this idiot sent this to WSDOT,” Kroske wrote. “It may have torpedoed the project. Hold up any further work on the submission until I hear from the mayor or city manager. With the engineer on record against it, I expect it will be difficult to get approval from WSDOT.” Aug. 7, 2011 Everett Herald.

Likewise, when it came to the safety of our children in school zones, we wanted to see a data-drive process, not this, which was in one of the emails from ATS’ Kroske sent to Bellingham on Jan.23, 2009: “The income issue really relates to the numbers of intersection violations, and schools on busy streets… which create the most significant numbers.”

One of the two school zones is located within about 100 yards of an I-5 off-ramp at Northwest Ave., which would lead to “busy streets”, as mentioned by Kroske. Have we picked the most dangerous school zones, or the busiest revenue generating zones? We don’t know, but we believe we should before moving forward.

We haven’t spoken to the author of the FAST Report. Our questions have, for the most part, been completely ignored. Then, once the lawsuit was started, the city refused to answer any questions regarding the project outside of our public disclosure requests. And remember, it’s like fishing. You have to know what you are fishing for to get what you want when filing for documents. They do not answer anything or provide any additional details outside the scope of the specific request. It has taken numerous requests to get the details we now have. We expect there is more; we just haven’t asked all of the right questions yet (and we have some requests pending).

I hope this answers your questions. If not, please ask us more.

Jeez, Larry,
How did this well-researched article morph into a comment about growth?

Jared Paben posted some spreadsheets based on the City’s own data that effectively rebutted the city’s arguments about accidents.

Back to growth:
You must be aware that the city is not growing, mostly because nobody can build anything that anyone wants to buy in Bellingham at a price that anyone can afford.

Eben Fodor is so twentieth century.

You wrote, “Currently, the general fund (through property and other taxes) subsidizes substantially more than half of these growth costs.”

I would appreciate seeing some data to support that assertion.

You’re fond of statutory references, and I would suggest that you go the goals in RCW 36.70A.020:  “The following goals are adopted to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations of those counties and cities that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040. The following goals are not listed in order of priority and shall be used exclusively for the purpose of guiding the development of comprehensive plans and development regulations:

    (1) Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.”

Italics mine, of course.
Draconian requirements for concurrency, based on unsupportable assumptions, don’t fit the definition in 36.70A.020, no matter how much you’d like them to.

To the authors: thank you, for following those questions until pieces of the puzzle clicked into place.  It was fascinating. Very good job.

David,

If you want proof that growth doesn’t pay for itself, there’s plenty of it to be found.  Considering all the research you do for your own pet causes, I’m certain you don’t need me to hold your hand.

If Eben Fodor is “so twentieth century,” the false belief that more growth will solve the problems created by prior growth is pre-historic.  Get real.  If you’re so fond of growth, the burden is on you to prove it’s truly beneficial.  Fodor has already proven it’s not.

Because the authors of this article referenced the FAST report, and because the FAST report identified the recession and lack of growth as the cause of the city’s financial problems, growth became fair game.

I have worked with three Fortune 500 company clients - and numerous smaller ones - in a financial capacity.  I assure you, growth can hide enormous fundamental structural problems - until there is no more growth.  Since infinite growth is not sustainable, neither are structures dependent upon unlimited growth.  Even cancer cells eventually destroy the organisms they inhabit. 

The city’s financial structure is a Ponzi scheme built on infinite growth.  Of course it will fail during recessionary periods.  It’s not up for debate, and I will not debate it with you. 

The city needs to find a way to survive financially regardless of population growth.  But, more importantly, the city needs to collect adequate revenue during periods of growth that cover the ultimate costs of growth, most of which do not appear until existing capacity is no longer sufficient.  Generally accepted accounting principles require businesses to ‘match’ revenues with expenses.  Governments that fail to do so will experience what Bellingham and other municipalities are experiencing now.  It’s not magic, nor is it rocket science.

Of course, the 1% limit on raising revenue is at the heart of the matter.  Any organization whose expenses rise with inflation but whose revenues are capped at 1% will see red ink whenever inflation is more than 1%.  The 1% revenue cap has caused cities like Bellingham to become addicted to population growth.  That situation must be addressed as well.

Sorry, David, I have seen others get sucked into the black hole which is your desperate need for debate.  I’ve got much better things to do.  See if you can figure this out on your own.

Christy,

Thanks for responding to my questions, and thank you and your colleagues for taking on this enormous challenge.

The questions you identified regarding the ‘broad-sweeping traffic collision data’ are good ones.  Hopefully City Council will address these as the city moves forward.  Greg Kirsch has identified at least one exit strategy the city could adopt to prevent the cameras from being installed.  Hopefully the city will consider this option.

If nothing else, your group’s research confirms that the city’s plan to install traffic cameras is just another example of the tail wagging the dog.  Considering that the issue is best addressed through traffic engineering rather than enforcement, any solution that circumvents the engineering department is likely to be one that will short circuit in time.

As someone who also invested considerable time fighting the city, I applaud your efforts.  Thank you.

Larry,
Gosh, You’re so smart.
You failed, I notice to post anything from a third party to support your assertions. (Not even Eben Fodor!)

This is an example: “Because the authors of this article referenced the FAST report, and because the FAST report identified the recession and lack of growth as the cause of the city’s financial problems, growth became fair game.”

You can do better than that, I’m sure.

You wrote, “The city’s financial structure is a Ponzi scheme built on infinite growth.  Of course it will fail during recessionary periods.  It’s not up for debate, and I will not debate it with you.”

Suit yourself.

I think that it is a Ponzi scheme built on the death of growth.
If you don’t want to debate, don’t respond.
I think your arguments are unsupportable and ridiculous.

Then you wrote, “Sorry, David, I have seen others get sucked into the black hole which is your desperate need for debate.  I’ve got much better things to do.”

Larry, I can assure you that I have no “desperate need to debate”, especially with you, given your condescension toward those with whom you disagree.

The rest of your post is unsupportable, and incoherent, in my opinion, for that matter.

The City is required by 36.70A to plan for growth.

Do you disagree with that?

Larry,
You wrote, “If Eben Fodor is “so twentieth century,” the false belief that more growth will solve the problems created by prior growth is pre-historic.  Get real.  If you’re so fond of growth, the burden is on you to prove it’s truly beneficial.  Fodor has already proven it’s not.”

Actually, to be accurate, Fodor has argued that it’s not, and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. The bar for proof is pretty high.

I don’t care to even argue that it’s beneficial, only that planning for it is required by GMA. There’s a difference, isn’t there? Do you disagree?

To Craig who wrote “I did not pay much attention to the specifics of the Bellingham mayor race.  Where is Linville on this issue?  Did she ever come out with a clear statement or did she avoid it so Pike took all of the heat?”

Kelli not only signed the initiative early on, she apparently advised some of the council members that there was some legislation at the state level regarding banning red light cams (9 states have banned already). The chair of the Transportation Committee refused to hear the bill so it died in Olympia. I would not be surprised if the issue reappears in the next year, considering all of the cities currently dealing with camera-related litigation.

At the mayoral debates that I attended Kelli stated that she felt the contract was signed prematurely and that she didn’t think the camera technology was the appropriate solution.

The Bellingham Herald recently released the names of all initiative signers after it was obtained via public disclosure request. I would not normally go around telling people which public official signed it and which didn’t but at this point the names have been made public.

Thanks for providing access to the FAST report (“Fiscal Alternatives for Stability Taskforce”). If there is a matching document from a commission on creating new income and jobs in Bellingham, I would be interested in reading that as well.

Did I miss something or did COB just increase that property tax levy to 1.63% last night?

http://www.cob.org/documents/finance/presentations/2012-revenue-forecast-presentation.pdf
http://www.cob.org/web/COUNCIL.nsf/0/0C45F103F79319C08825794B005C89CB/$File/21nov2011_AB19331.pdf?OpenElement

There is still a signed contract on the table between ATS and the city.The city council and the mayor have brought this oily partner into our lives and we, the citizens have to find a way to end that relationship.
Yes, the people have spoken through the ballot box, but the contract obligates us to at least a one year “pilot” program (read that as “we got our foot in the door, the general fund will get accustomed to the money, American Traffic Solutions will benefit and want to stay, so B’ham will never get rid of the cameras”). If Greg Kirsch has an idea for an exit strategy, I would love to see it sitting on the table next to the contract. Please put it out there, Greg.
And how will the city measure success at the end of the one year pilot? By the number of tickets generated? The amount of revenue increase? City traffic engineers needs to do a comprehensive study using collision and traffic movement data from the proposed intersection to determine a baseline BEFORE any cameras go in in the “pilot”.

Not to steal Greg’s thunder, but his strategy involves Section 12.2 of the ATS contract (link below), which states:

“The City may terminate this Contract in the event that state or local legislation, state or local initiative, state or local referendum, or a decision by a court of competent jurisdiction prohibits the enforcement of Violations using image-capture technology or in any way effects the terms of this agreement…” 

Note that Section 12.2 allows ATS to petition the court to determine the legality of any legislation, initiative, or referendum BEFORE the City may terminate the Agreement.  ATS has already used this power to defeat the initiative.

As I understand it, Greg’s strategy is for the city to adopt legislation that “prohibits the enforcement of Violations using image-capture technology,” thereby satisfying the termination clause of the contract.

Link to ATS contract (refer to Section 12.2 on page 11 of the contract, pg 12 of the pdf):

[www.cob.org/cob/Contracts.nsf/%28$All%29/177C9146819F955988257888005E174F/$File/20110224.pdf?OpenElement]

The recent article in the TNT about the Tacoma Council turning first to red light cameras as the #1 source of increased revenue pretty shows how they view the cameras as primarily a revenue source.

http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2011/11/22/tacoma-council-weighs-revenue-options-to-off-set-city-layoffs/

The numbers are interesting:  if bumping the fines up $23 to $124 yields over $419,000, then Tacoma is already addicted to over $1.8 million a year from the cameras.

A couple of thoughts.

If they are serious about “it’s not about revenue” then they can show this by issuing citations other than cash fines.  Simple enough.  If it’s serious enough to be paying this kind of money and subjecting people to this kind of surveillance, it had better be life-threatening criminal activity, right?

We can also check that the yellow light on an intersection with a traffic cam is a reasonable length.  For all of Bellingham that allows 35mph, a workable standard is safe braking for a fully loaded semi, since they drive everywhere.  If a truck can’t safely stop for the light, then there’s something wrong with the light, and they have no business issuing tickets over it.

Another important item is the destination of the revenue, which can be directed away from any departments that can profit from tweaking the system.  Yes, that means the police, the prosecutors, and the administrators should NOT profit from any revenue brought in.  In fact, the costs and benefits should be arranged so that it is in the interest of police and prosecutors, as well as traffic planners, to get the law enforced with the fewest number of penalties, not the largest.

I also found the page of British comment on revenue-generating traffic cameras at http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm to be eloquent and compelling (do note that when you get to the bottom, there’s more pages).  But then, I like poetry.

The Transportation Safety Coalition is correct, red light cameras are about revenue, not safety.  Red light cameras only produce any significant amount of revenue when: 1) yellow intervals are too short for the ACTUAL approach speeds of at least 85% of the vehicles and/or 2) cameras target safe slow rolling right on red turns.  If the yellows are set long enough, cameras will not record enough straight through violations to pay their installation and operational costs.  Right on red turns, from a stop or from a slow roll, account for only a tiny fraction of one percent of all fatalities.

In short, red light cameras can only work financially when most of the tickets are given to very safe drivers who present virtually no risks to themselves or other road users.  The entire industry is based on deliberately improper engineering and/or predatory ticketing of safe drivers. The PIRG report shows how the contracts with ticket companies are written to favor revenue over safety.

And red light cameras often raise the total accident rates.

In the defense of red light cameras, some city engineers will say “we time the yellow intervals for the posted speed limits”.  This is code for “we time the yellows too short by first setting the speed limits lower than the safety-optimum 85th percentile speed of free flowing traffic under good conditions - the method that almost always produces the smoothest traffic flow and the highest safety”, so we use deliberately bad engineering in two of the major traffic safety procedures in order to raise ticket revenue.

Camera companies often provide “data” to show that cameras produce fewer violations and greater safety, but please first ask where the data comes from.  Be sure it is not from companies or groups that have a financial conflict of interest in ticket cameras or the tickets that are issued.  This makes data very questionable from groups like the IIHS, and obviously data from the camera companies is very suspect for bias.

Go to our website to see some of the unbiased research from groups that have no financial conflicts of interest in ticket cameras.  Look at the data from cities that lengthened their yellows by 0.7 to 1.0 seconds and got 50% to 90% reductions in violations.  Look at the studies which show increased total accident rates at camera sites, including some studies that show more injury accidents as well.  See the engineering experts describe longer yellows as THE most effective way to reduce red light violations.

Go to http://www.thenewspaper.com and see the lists and articles for cities that allowed their citizens to vote on cameras.  The only place cameras survived a vote was East Cleveland, and then only when the city sent uniformed officers in patrol cars to go house to house telling voters they needed to keep the cameras in place to prevent the city from firing 36 police officers, 14 firefighters, and at least 10 other workers.  East Cleveland had become so addicted to the ticket revenue that they had to blackmail their citizens to vote to keep the cameras.  This is corruption.

As to dealing with the “pilot” program without the city getting addicted to the revenue - that is easy.  Simply add 1.0 seconds of yellow to all the lights (but not to exceed the federal maximum of 6.0 seconds).  If violations are still too high, add another 0.5 seconds of yellow.  Then pass a city ordinance that slow rolling right on red turns are not an offense in your traffic code, so long as that turn did not endanger another road user or pedestrian. These two moves will drop the violation and ticket rate so low that ATS will be the one asking to end the contract immediately.

Once the cameras are gone, direct the engineers to review the posted speed limits and set almost all main road limits at the 85th percentile speed of free flowing traffic under good conditions. This will likely raise most posted limits by 5 or 10 mph.  NOTE that actual travel speeds will not change by more than about 1 mph in most cases, but the flow will be smoother and safer.  Then time the yellows to those actual 85th percentile approach speeds.  You will then have a town free of predatory camera enforcement AND smoother and safer traffic flow overall.

James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, http://www.motorists.org, Ann Arbor, MI

This discussion seems to have devolved into one about red-light cameras only.  After reading all the comments, I too have come to question their safety and utility.  That being said, the school zone cameras seem to have become a poor orphan that has been left out in the cold.  Moreover, nobody has answered the question about the real meaning of the vote on the initiative which actually had four components, as I indicated in my comment above from 21 November to wit:  “The promoters were asking for agreement on four different issues in the same initiative, which pushed me to vote against it in its entirety.  One aspect was to remove any camera installed under the 2010 agreement.  Second, was to require city council approval of any such cameras in the future.  Third was to require voter re-affirmation of any city council approval of such cameras.  And fourth was a limitation on the fine as a result of a camera produced infraction. “  How does one vote yes or no on an initiative with so many combinations of elements?  Also embedded in the initiative was a lack of choice about red-light cameras and school zone cameras. Speed cameras are an altogether different animal and have been shown to be effective in reducing deaths and injuries depending on their locations.  Even if the objective is just to get folks to slow down in a school zones (notwithstanding the absence a history in Bellingham of injured children), that may be a topic worthy of further exploration.

Neither the city of Bellingham nor American Traffic Solutions have been honest brokers in this multi-year effort by the mayor and city council to bring red light cameras into our town. While the Transportation Safety Coalition did get a measure on the November ballot advising city government not to install red light cameras, and the initiative past with 68% opposed to the cameras, the city council has been decidedly mum since election day.

Citizens of this town and the county people who do their business here have spent the last year in the dark regarding what has been going on between our public servants and the camera company. It was only though the Public Records Request Act that we found out anything. We’re surprised that since the election, local government hasn’t been more forthcoming. Openness and transparency are important to reestablishing trust.

We say to the council, “keep us in the loop”. Folks want to know what’s going on. What is the state of the contract and what are your intentions, council? Citizens must keep strong, gentle pressure on their elected representatives.

Mr. Conoboy,

While the comments under the article may be more about red-light cameras than speed cameras, our year long research was not. We have been given no evidence that would conclude us to believe there is a crash history that would be fixed with speed cameras in school zones.

We do not see speed cameras reducing collisions there, nor do any of the 115 pages of emails imply there was any real concern for our children in school zones. The fact that the City and ATS discussed installing the speed cameras on busy streets for income furthers our point: “The income issue really relates to the numbers of intersection violations, and schools on busy streets…; which create the most significant numbers.”

Bottom line, we think it’s hard to not be disgusted with this privatization of law enforcement/for-profit model being brought into Bellingham. No part of this project works for us, unless there is a complete redo of the analysis and thorough public discussion.

Further more, we would suggest that there are better alternatives to cameras, like radar/speed signs, that transmit drivers’ speeds onto a neon sign in the school zone – at eye-level – so that a drivers attention is above the dash, rather than staring at their speedometers as they nervously drive through a school zone. Mt. Vernon uses these at each of their schools and the city’s Public Works department raves about them - and they are fairly inexpensive (5K each to purchase vs. the red light cam price of $4,700 per month each to lease). Just north in Vancouver, B.C. there are speed bumps at all schools (public and private), making it virtually impossible to speed. We want drivers driving at the speed limit - but watching out for our children should be their priority - not looking down below the dashboard. Just like red-light cameras, we believe that installing automated ticket machines where there’s not a collision history may increase the risk of collisions.

The discussion of school zone safety needs to begin and end with the safety of our children. Take the money (and ATS) out of the equation. We doubt that when the safety of our children is truly put first, that for-profit speed cameras will be part of the solution.

As far as the initiative language, if it had to be done over again, I agree that it could have been written differently. Hindsight is 20/20. However, almost 70 percent of voters thought it worked for them. I disagree with you when you say we were asking voters for agreement on four different issues - I see them all as being part of the same issue. I’m sorry we did not have your vote. Having said all that, it’s too bad it was necessary at all.

Christy,

Thanks for the detailed reply. To reiterate, I was never for the privatization effort.  Public safety and policing are government functions.  You lost my vote because the initiative was not clear, purely and simply.  That 70% of the voters seemed to have no problem with the wording makes me more concerned - about the electorate.  Did most even read it?  Or was the vote a knee-jerk reaction to overall publicity?

It is amazing how we sometimes resort to complicated and expensive efforts when often the low-tech and cheaper fix works better.  Speed bumps absolutely work.  They have brought speeds way down in the Sunnyland neighborhood on Grant Street.  They absolutely should be used in school zones everywhere, and if the city ever gets around to reducing the speeds on Alabama to a sane and safer 25 mph I’d love to see speed bumps on Alabama Hill.  They are irritating but they work well as not-so gentle-reminders to oblivious and incautious motorists.  The bumps (or humps as they are called in some jurisdictions) are also very good at smacking cell phones into inattentive driver’s ears.

Mike, I agree. The problem is that speed bumps and other low tech solutions don’t make hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars for municipalities. If safety were truly the main goal this would be a no-brainer. Tonight Jack Weiss said to the Birchwood Neighborhood Association that the city would be moving forward with the cameras starting in 6-8 weeks. Has a formal city announcement not been made because the council is hoping the public won’t notice or is the council embarrassed at what its actions have led to - cowering to the litigious profiteering company that is ATS?