As the Campaign Consultant/Manager for the grass roots organization Citizens Against Red Light Cameras I can’t say that I was shocked that the Chronicle chose to endorse the City’s financial interests and its ongoing relationship with an out-of state-vendor instead of supporting our public safety. I can say I’m surprised that they never bothered to call us and request a formal or even informal interview with the board of editors.
And yes I’m well aware that Lisa Falkenburg a columnist with the Chronicle did a profile piece on Paul Kubosh one of the founders of the CARLC. But she admitted at the time she was not a member of the board of editors. As a long-time political activist that has been professionally involved in well over a dozen local campaigns (some which the Chronicle did endorse), it seems inconsistent with the Chronicle’s typical endorsement procedure that they did not at least make the attempt to appear unbiased by formally interviewing all sides involved in the election.
Although I will admit Keep Houston Silent and its supporters i.e. the Chronicle are consistent in one regard – subterfuge. On the same Labor Day weekend a lawsuit is filed in Federal court by the ATS-backed Keep Houston Safe/Silent to deny Houstonians the right to vote in November, the Chronicle issues an endorsement in the campaign without the courtesy of asking why our grass roots campaign is opposed to the program. Note to the editors: ignoring something you don’t want to hear does not make it go away.
So perhaps the editors might allow me a few inches of space to at least tell its readership why they should join our effort to allow Houstonians to determine the direction of our city as opposed to a Goldman Sachs investment based in the State of Arizona.
The cameras are about money NOT safety. Disregard for a moment the increase in accidents at intersections where these cameras have been installed (which they have) and instead look at the intersections where they were installed. They were not installed at the most dangerous intersections in the city, which would have been the logical location if it were about safety. Instead they have been placed at those intersections that have higher than average violations. Simply put, more chances for more money.
Granted the Chronicle in its endorsement did cite the money as the chief reason for support (along with just doing what were told, you have got love that part.. end sarcasm ) However according to recent media reports the City’s trauma care centers are not currently receiving their share of the money. Please don’t tell me the check is in the mail.
The cameras do in-fact lead to more accidents. The original, most comprehensive publicly published study to date, the December 2008 Rice University Stein Report, proved this. Despite the city’s repeated attempts to suppress data that would result in a report against the cameras, Dr. Stein resisted and admitted that the cameras do not reduce accidents in a March 14 email to the City which was obtained through an open records request.
In your endorsement you failed to mention that the study you cited was never publicly released, and Dr. Stein sent an email this year acknowledging this new report was based on incomplete data due to some papers being lost in a city warehouse
I, along with many citizens feel the program is a violation of our Constitutional rights to due process and the right to confront our accuser. The people have a right and a duty to hold their Government accountable, and just because big brother tells us to sit down and be quiet does not mean we have to obey. We can and should refuse to be silent and we can and should dictate to our Government how it should operate, it does not have the right to tell us how to live.
And as for the law and order argument which is oft cited by the Red Light Cameras supporters that people should just obey the law, I agree, and so should our City Government. Every red light violation that is issued by the City violates state law by not including statuatory language required by the authorizing legislation. (Sec. 707.019 of the State Transportation code). Even still, I do not think that the camera program truly changes driver behavior for the better. The fact that some admit they drive differently when they know there is a camera present creates far more problems that it supposedly solves.
How can we allow the city to break the law while enforcing another?
And how can anyone defending this practice claim to be concerned with the law and the rights of our fellow citizens?
Maybe money has something to do with it, and since when should we trust Government when money is involved? As for me, I trust my fellow citizens.
We at CARLC believe a fair examination of the facts leads to obvious conclusions:
One, Houstonians should be allowed to vote on the issue in November in a fair and proper election, the rights of the people to vote should be paramount. Democracy cannot be convenient to Government, only holding an election when it can control the outcome. Instead it should be its chief concern, the right of the people to petition their government to address grievances should be respected and the City should do all in its power to defend the people’s rights.
And two, when you vote in November and you reach Proposition 3 on the bottom of the ballot, Vote NO. It is time to shut down this gross money grab by a Big Government/ Big Business partnership which risks our safety and violates our rights for the sake of a few dollars.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
B. Franklin 1755
Unlike Keep Houston Silent and the Chronicle I’ll trust you to make up your own mind.
Please visit our website to learn more.
http://www.nocamerashouston.com/
Philip Owens
Citizen Against Red Light Cameras