Publisher note:  ATS - the Red Light Camera company - has filed a lawsuit to block the initiative from the ballot this fall. On Friday, July 29, they filed suit in Whatcom Superior Court. Below is a guest article from Johnny Weaver who headed up the Bellingham effort to prevent the installation of the Red Light Cameras. The sad fact is, Mayor Dan Pike signed the contract in May when it became obvious that enough signatures would be collected to put the issue on the ballot. One item in the contract he signed specifically gave his and city approval to ATS to file suit to prevent a ballot initiative. Thus, the mayor legally gave ATS permission to seek to prevent a vote, and then spoke about how he hoped they would not. He could have had that clause taken out of the contract.  He did not.  

-----------------

The goal of this editorial regarding automatic ticketing cameras (Initiative # 2011-01) is to succinctly clarify for Bellingham residents that:

1.  A vote is required on this controversial issue because the people deserve to be heard and the City Council should abide by that vote.

2.  The Council – if it has done the research on all sides of the issue – is providing their constituents with only a two-pronged depiction of the use of red-light cameras (increasing city coffers, and erroneous safety claims,) rather than the full story which includes: unbiased data-driven accident analysis, Constitutionally protected civil liberty violations, and the democratic process.

Your Bellingham City Council scheduled, and then denied, a public hearing regarding the automatic ticketing camera issue. The mayor signed a contract with the Arizona corporation that installs, maintains, and gains a substantial portion of the revenue generated from the cameras. In response to these actions, the Transportation Safety Coalition sponsored a petition to ensure public opinion is properly represented. That vote will finally happen because of the amazing support from Bellingham constituents to have their voices heard and heeded!

Bellingham Initiative #2011-01 will give the citizens of this community the chance, after being silenced through denial of a hearing, to ask questions, do their own research, and make a decision by voting accordingly.

We know there are less intrusive and greener ways to encourage law abiding, safe drivers that don’t involve a mega-million dollar, Goldman Sachs-affiliated corporation, and dishing out “secret” tickets to our citizens, guests, and visitors. Slapping up cameras and treating citizens and visitors like ATM machines hurts our reputation as a friendly town. That kind of impersonal, disrespectful treatment may be OK in big cities, but the Council and mayor should abide by the voter when they decide if that’s the way we treat each other in Bellingham.

Once people know the facts about this questionable program, we are confident they will make the right decision. If this camera program is ultimately rejected by the people, then the government can implement less expensive, more effective, greener, and less intrusive strategies like more public outreach and education, posted signs, flashing warning lights, solar powered speed indicator signs (Mt. Vernon raves about their success in traffic safety,) etc. Those approaches are more in line with the way we do things in Bellingham.

Having the government conduct intrusive camera surveillance on its citizens to impose fines is obnoxious and violates fundamental constitutional rights like the 4th Amendment (privacy,) the 5th Amendment (can not be witness against him or herself,) and the 6th Amendment (due process.) This is Bellingham; we know when something smells fishy.  

Many municipalities have tried using ticketing cameras with very negative results. Spokane courts recently ruled all tickets through its ticketing program are now void due to fact that an officer in Washington never signed the ticket because they come from a private, out-of-state corporation. The Los Angeles Police Department recently voted unanimously to end their ticketing program. As the very liberal Los Angeles Times editorialized: “The traffic cameras cost the city of Los Angeles money while having dubious safety benefits.” 15 states have barred the ticketing cameras, many for violating their state constitutions. Would an honest program just take our money and never hold us accountable on our driving record? We think not.

The wonderful part about the initiative process is the collection of voter signatures and the campaign. It gives everyone the opportunity to discuss and debate the issue, learn more about the pros and cons, and have a voice in the final decision. It engages and empowers the citizenry and provides elected officials with invaluable feedback from the people they represent. Measures like Bellingham Initiative #2011-01 provide citizens with a critical check on government power.

We welcome the debate on ticketing cameras (here are 17 reasons why they’re a really bad idea: www.BanCams.com/17reasons,) but when the dust settles and your vote is cast, it’s about whether you think it should be the people, and not the politicians and an Arizona corporation, who decide.