Thursday, November 12, 2009
Cars, Cameras, Collections and Credit.
Did you know that if you fail to pay the 75 dollar (Big brother is watching) ticket you could hurt your credit rating? According to the Houston Chronicle today (can’t find the article online, but I have it in print ) if you do not pay your big brother ticket it will be turned over to a credit agency for collection. So if you dispute that you ran a red light there is no court of law you can go to. In League City you are SOL (surely out of luck). Thoughts ??
31 comments:
Did you say "surely"?
VI - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
VII - In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
They'll be hard pressed to accuse me of a crime and extort money from me without giving me a fair trial. I'm fighting back before it starts.
If only someone on the right side of this issue would run for office and remove the existing Big Brother council members......
I wish there was another way to stop the train of runners at those intersections.
Obviously, the intent is not to stop them, but to milk them.
I love the way the mayor claims its not her fault we have the cameras, she blames it on JS too? Thats too funny. I seem to remember he supporting them in the meeting they were approved on?
What justification was given? Sharp rise in incidents of screeching tires and horns blaring? Fender benders? Accidents? Tickets written? What?
Another cute tool for cops is not justification. There has always been four traffic lights. And then there were, by my count, six overhead cameras.
If those weren't adequate or working properly, I sure don't see them being taken down after cameras 7 and 8 went up. This really screams for reexamination.
what the hell do the cops have to do with the cameras? Council approved the cameras.
Paul,
I doubt that you are one of the many that continue into an intersection, not on a caution, but on a red. Someone else has a green at this point and it's risky business. I don't like the cameras because for the same reason as Chris posted, and because of a distrust that I have in surveillance based enforcement that also can look like a for profit venture.
Is there a better way to stop the problem? Why not retractable spikes that pop up with the red? :? I bet that would be a lesson not soon forgotten :/
Joe: Try not paying one of those tickets and see what the cops have to do with it.
Charles: I repeat my first paragraph. That many people can't be running reds all the time without at least the occasional accident sooner or later.
You're absolutely correct, Paul.
In fact, according to an LCPD study on 518 at 45, H3 and 2094, only 8 red light accidents happened in the last 18 months. And none of them were at 518 and 2094...
Paul,
You ask about what justification was given? Go read the council meeting minutes... (hint: $500,000 in fines per year)
Right. The filters on those cameras are nothing short of scientific breakthrough and modern marvel.
They completely block evidence of any actual damage or injury, so that the lens sees only dollar signs. Brilliant.
Paul,
Ive personally witnessed,more than once, as many as five vehicles blowing through a red. The end result is the group with the green gets delayed as much as five or six seconds. That's enough to contribute to deadlock unless each group cheats to make up the time.
So a problem does exist...I'm just not fond of the enterprise part of the solution.
Hey Dustin, I got an idea, run for office and do something about it..oh wait you did and all 20 of your family members voted for you.
And Paul, its a civil fine dips*&#, so the cops don't do anything. You ways run your pie hole before you know what you're talking about.
Hey Joe,
Nice to meet you...
It was actually 140+ people voting for me, and only one of those was from my family. I wonder what those voters would think of you belittling their choice.
How many people voted for you?
But at least I tried... what have you done?
-dustin
Hey Joe,
If I remember correctly, I had one more "lame ass website" than you did, participated in 3 more debates than you did, had 140+ more votes than you did... what have you done?
I'm not sure what your problem with me is. I'm just a guy that lives in League City that put his name on the ballot. Why is that a problem? Why do you so passionately disapprove of me just running for office?
Should only people with signs run for office? Should only people with slick web sites run for office? Should only people with disposable income run for office?
What more *should* a person have to do than put his name on the ballot?
Why do you even care? You don't like me, vote for someone else...
I'd like to see you put yourself out on the line and put your name on the ballot. See what kind of response you get. See how many blog trolls accost you for the lamest of reasons.
Until then... go back under your bridge.
Well Dustin maybe it’s all of your negative opinionated garbage you post on here and on your website when you ran. That’s why all of us (employees)disliked you. I can’t run for office I work for the City.
Joe,
Well now we're getting somewhere. Instead of name calling, you're explaining yourself. I appreciate that.
Yes, I do point out what in my opinion are bad decisions made by the city. The city is supposed to work for me, and when it doesn't, I say something about it. As a citizen, I feel that is a responsibility of mine.
I'm sure the city would rather go on thinking that everything it does is right by everyone... but that's not the case. It can't be the case, because everyone has different opinions about what is right and wrong. That's the whole point of elections.
As far as what I posted on my site and how I've commented on this blog, I don't see it as "negative opinionated garbage". On my site, I spoke of my beliefs in government in general and touched on a few local issues. I don't believe that was garbage or negative. On here, I rarely post comments. When I do, I feel the majority of them, again, are not "negative opinionated garbage." I'd certainly entertain any efforts you take at explaining what you mean in more detail, giving examples of course.
In public, though, I'm only given the "privilege" of petitioning my government for 3 minutes every two weeks. I've only done that twice. Officially, I've taken less than 6 minutes of the city's time. So far, I've done my best to present facts and my interpretation of those facts. Again, if you think I've presented garbage, I'd entertain you explaining why you think that.
Looking forward to it...
Joe, I can't help but notice the similarities between your comments and writing style, and that of CostlyKosty, Pat Hallisey and our old friend Glen Cove Resident.
For example, both you and CostlyKosty have both used Toni repeatedly in sentences, and even called her a "crook" in an eerily similar fashion.
You stated that you worked for the city, I quote: "That’s why all of us (employees)disliked you. I can’t run for office I work for the City." (November 19, 2009 6:44 PM.)
If that's true, how does the city feel about employees making accusations about other employees such as "Don't you have some drywall to hang. Even your peers are growing tired of your drunken ways." ? I'm sure HR would greatly disprove of such behavior... and if you actually don't work for the city, then you should understand that H.B. 2003 covers online impersonation "with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate, or
threaten any person" and I have no idea what statutes may exist for impersonating a city official.
You've even posted on a weekday during city work hours... "Thursday, November 05, 2009 3:09:00 PM" on the "Signs of Times" thread. Tell me, do you post from the city?
Overall, your comments are just as destructive and morally wrong as Pat Hallisey's were... but as I personally suspect, you're actually one in the same. You should really watch yourself.
Regards,
Richard
Yes Richard I am very familiar with that and many other H.B.'s are you aware of that what H.B.'s are? Apparently not. And its easy to say that everyone that comes out against the current admin is just Pat Hallisey using another alias, because you don't want to face it that there are MANY more of us out there. Oh and go ahead save my post you will see they are not only consistent but TRUTHFUL. Wonder why you would defend Charlie? Careful the truth hurts and Charles will figure out soon, I know it, just ask him. How does the City feel about employees making accusations about other employees? That’s a good one, ask Charlie that too.
Did you sleep well last night, "Joe"?
So...how do you feel about the SMART goals? Do you support the establishment of tangible goals that hold the promise of creating a proactive atmosphere of cooperation?
Do you support the dawning of an era that encourages employees to actively participate in building a team concept that really works...or do you prefer the "old school" concept of departments that operate with independence and foster a caste mentality?
Do you think it is appropriate to make comments about the Mayor and members of council that imply racism? Is it okay to call the Mayor a crook?
Do you think it is okay to belittle citizens that choose to participate in the process by running for office?
Is it okay, given our history, to climb outside the "box" we've been residing in and look for solutions that have been obscured by four walls and a lid?
Do you like threatening people from under a veil of anonymity, "Joe"? Does it make you feel larger?
Joe,
I'm aware that the House Bill I had referenced was passed by the senate and made into law (effective Sept. 1, 2009) after being signed by the governor. I understand what H.B.s are, and how they become an enforceable law. Do you?
You never did address my question regarding posting from the city (if you actually work there).
If the truth hurts and you're being so "truthful", why don't you just come out with the truth instead of hiding and striking in the shadows the way you do? Your statements sounds like Pat's comment where he made a statement where "him and others lining up to squash Charles like the cockroach he is" (paraphrased). These statements seem rather childish to me, and I've yet to hear or see anything that would ever support such statements. The truth is upheld with facts and evidence, where is yours? Let me guess, "wait and see." We've all heard that before... still waiting.
You are right, it could be easy to group you with Pat. However, both share a lot in common with the way you "stir up a good mystery". The overall nature of your posts, from the style, verbiage, etc. is why I believe you're one in the same. That will remain my assumption until you can prove otherwise.
Regards,
Richard
I note two things of interest.
Late yesterday I posted a challenge to all those who are harping about the Mary Chamber's lawsuit closed-door discussions. No one responded, yet that didn't stop "Joe" from posting yet another harp. I suppose Joe is one of the old guard of do-nothings that work for the city who fail to understand the concept of servant.
2nd item, the other blog is now restricted to those who are invited. Maybe to weed out anoniminity? Perhaps? We shall see as I will be logging in.
Access denied invitation only. If Marc's blog is going to become a country club blog, well it's just sad.
BHL,
Shortly before it went down, there was a purge of comments on various threads, and a few threads even disappeared. Pat and Chris were also removed as contributors while it went down.
It's sad, but probably for the best given the trend it was on.
- Richard
I can't understand why Chris would get removed. Rather brash measures just to throttle one former short-lived politician who only needs a little adjustment to his medications. Not something we can't all handle by ourselves without a moderator.
Signed,
Dip$#!7
aka Pie Hole
aka Joe's No. 1 Fan
I do agree that red light running had become a critical problem (not just in League city, but all over the Houston area) and something should be done about it.
However, I also emphatically agree that turning over enforcement to robot traffic cops (red light cameras) owned and operated by a vigilante justice corporation is not an acceptable solution.
It seems to me that the correct answer is to just refocus the efforts of the official police department on this problem using the existing laws and policing tools.
For years I have observed that quite often traffic police are lying along the roads waiting to catch speeders, but they are rarely seen stationed at intersections to enforce intersection safety laws. That is a puzzling imbalance of effort given that speeding is not as nearly an epidemic problem as running red lights and that far more accidents with more damaging consequences happen at intersections rather than between them. Worse, even when the police are at an intersection, they are rarely effectively enforcing the law. I am shocked by the number of times I have seen somebody blatantly run a red light right in front of a policeman and nothing happen. It is so bad that one time I saw a car pull into oncoming traffic from behind me when I stopped at a red light and then run through the red light right in front of a police car parked in the middle of the road facing him. The policeman did nothing at all because he was waiting to catch people speeding through a school zone. How stupid can we be?!
The answer seems very simple and uncontroversial to me. Clarify to the PD that their job is to improve safety not raise revenue and assign the traffic police to reduce their time spent patrolling between intersections and instead spend more time stationed at intersections ready to enforce the existing traffic signal laws the old fashioned way - without vigilante robots.
Dustin, are you going to run for city council and do something about it?
Jeff Hagen
Jeff,
Your ideas on traffic law enforcement are in line with what I've long thought.
I'll add something, too. I thoroughly dislike driving past "speeder catcher" cops just sitting there. Even though they are surely doing something in that car, the appearance is that they are just sitting in their car until their shift is up.
But you know what I thoroughly enjoy? Watching a "intersection" cop pulling over red light runners and intersection fillers and cheaters in merge lanes.
Psychologically, I think its because speeders aren't inconveniencing me (or even really threatening me, based on accident statistics)... but people that break laws at intersections are not only causing a safety hazard, but are also just really making me angry because they're interrupting my travel.
I've seen police stand near traffic-y intersections that walk out and hand tickets to folks stuck in the intersection after the lights change. It only took a few cycles before folks started behaving and following the lights.
But, if the city is dead set on having cameras, perhaps we could just give police officers a few Nikons with long lenses? We'd still not have due process, though...
---
As far as running again, I'm considering it.
However, I'm always drawn back to what I think elections are meant to be. In my opinion, and how things used to be way back when, the community would nominate folks to lead them and a vote would be taken on those nominees. Think back to the earliest presidential elections. Those nominees didn't "run for office". In fact, campaigning was distasteful. To plead for votes was the sure sign of someone in it for the wrong reasons.
This was a primary factor in my not spending any money the last go around, putting my name on the ballot by way of petition (unlike everyone else that paid their way onto the ballot), and generally not asking for votes but just telling folks what I believed.
If I run again, I will very likely do it in the same way. That's the only appropriate way I can think of. I wouldn't run for power and fame, but as a servant at the overwhelming request of the people I live near.
I'm not a politician. I'm just a guy.
According to Texas Transportation Code, Chapter 707, Section 3:
"(h) A local authority or the person with which the local authority contracts for the administration and enforcement of a photographic traffic signal enforcement system may not provide information about a civil penalty imposed under this chapter to a credit bureau, as defined by Section 392.001, Finance Code."
The worst that can happen if you don't pay, as far as I can tell, is listed in Section 17:
"If the owner of a motor vehicle is delinquent in the payment of a civil penalty imposed under this chapter, the county assessor-collector or the Texas Department of Transportation may refuse to register a motor vehicle alleged to have been involved in the violation."
Just FYI.
Post a Comment