Red Light Advise: From the Email InBox

Paww...

I am against the Red Light camera's. I perfer the "Notice to Appear" citation. I received an Red Light Ticket in Riverside about a year ago. I pled not guilty and explained to the Judge that I have a Constitutional Right to confront my accuser. If my Rights are to be respected in a Court of Law, then I would like that camera removed and brought into Court with the person that invented it, and an explaination on how it is supposed to work. the person that last calibrated it and an explaintation of any possible malfunctions such as yellow lights being set at one or two seconds to catch the person in a red light. The video did show I entered the intersection as the light turned red but the Judge dismissed it because of my request.

Paww...

If Simon can't understand the cameras, what about city management?


Paww....

If you get a red light ticket in G.T. many times the fine is very excessive. If you pay it, then OK.

If not, as many folks say no to. They then go to court in downtown S.B. and get a date for a hearing before speaking judge. This then saves them quite a few dollars.

The judge too may say the infraction was wrong, but then due to the high (arbitrary) fine, will reduce it to about 1/3rd or 1/2 the original rate. Nothing wrong with that, the driver is still guilty, but the fine is lesser, at a bit more than the rate a motor officer would have charged.

I have heard the original mail-in fine is nearer to $600 whereas the judges say the fine is better at $100-$200 each offence. Solution?

Raise the fine rates up more to make up for the shortfall in fees collected. Pretty soon it will cost One Million dollars to violate the camera bandit, as only one person pays the full rate. Like the lemonade stand at the curb charging $15 each, you only need to sell one glass to make up in profits for all the losses.

Paww Thinks:

You have some great advise to citizens who do get a red light violation. However, your long term economics are a bit off even if amusing.

Understanding the contract is not a problem, if you are not looking to spend every last available dime even if it doesn't belong to you to spend.

The contract was for 6000.00 per month for 5 years. If in one month the collections fell short the amount would carry forward to the end of the 5 years in the event the under collection would cover past shortfalls. However, if at the end of 5 years the account would settle out. If in the event the total receipts exceeded 6000.00 per month in the 5 years the city would claim those funds for the general fund.

What should have been the financial method of accounting would have had an account that was not touched by the city for 5 years except to make payments to the Red Light Company. Those months where receipts exceeded the debt owed or the monthly account due, should have been held in reserve to the end of the 5 year contract. The city would be earning interest on these held funds and the balance would have been legitimately transferred to the General Fund.

However, the flawed financial manipulation was neither prudent or ethical, perhaps even illegal. It exemplifies the bad management practices or criminality of Tom Schwab, Steve Berry and Bernie Simon and the City Council. It also indicates a flaw in the legal advise the city is paying for at an excessive amount each month.

The citizens should demand a full disclosure of where the money went, down to the last cent. Where did the money come from to pay off Tom Schwab. Where did the money come from to pay for Tom Schwab's retirement party and chair? Even after Tom Schwab was side lined failure to pay the Red Light Company falls onto the ineptitude or criminality of Steve Berry the Council and Bernie Simon.

The funds collected and spent on anything other than payment to the Red Light Company were not the City's Funds to Spend until the end of the 5 year contract. That is a Crime plain and simple.

What else is to be discovered under the rugs that are in the Behind Closed Doors of City Hall?