The time is finally here for Clevelanders to vote yes on issue 35 to ban the cameras

YES

Not a Clevelander, but I wish you well. Referendums to ban camera enforcement usually win at the polls--go figure!

"Who pays & who benefits (disproportionally)."
Everything else is diversion, divide & conquer, or as Penn & Teller would say: BS. So ...

1. Why don't "Clevelanders" get efficient and simply vote the bums out who had these cameras installed in the first place?

2. How do "Clevelanders:" propose to make up the lost revenue? COLA provisions on local taxes to keep all law enforcement personal apace w/inflation? Highway "Civil Forfeiture"? Raise/erect tolls on all interstates & bridges through OHIO?

Actually, I think all cameras throughout the US should be banned.

Nuvi1300WTGPS

Should the citizens ban together and vote to do away with parking tickets?

The logic here would call for us to ban all law enforcement techniques which actually work--especially ones which are efficient.

By the way, I was born in a Cleveland hospital.

While I have not lived in the area for decades, I do oppose this measure.

Please vote to ban Red light cameras. We should get this on the ballots of every State, City, and Municipality.

Cameras are not used for the public safety. They are used to generate revenue. That is why they should be banned.

Parking tickets are not for public safety either.

Should one not be consistent in their reasoning?

Yes people are caught and are paying fines and rightfully so. And yes there are some tickets given for the questionable events around the cameras. But, bottom line is that if you run a light then pay the fine.

The red light camera issue has been discussed here ad nauseam, the more interesting thing will be the result of the proposed amendment. We'll get a good idea how much the general public likes or dislikes these things.

I suspect that the public will vote to ban the cameras.

What exactly will that say about whether cameras are a good way to produce revenue and improve public safety at the same time?

If the ban passes, it'll say cameras are a socially unacceptable way to produce revenue and improve safety. It'll lead one to think that the public doesn't think the safety aspect is a reality, or at least that they don't value it to the degree they're willing to pay for it with fines. Some followup questions on an exit poll could be quite enlightening - it'll be worth checking Cleveland newspapers online after the vote to get more of the story.

A yes vote won't ban the cameras, it will require a "law enforcement officer" to be there and write the ticket. Wonder if meter maids or other lower paid employees can be considered law enforcement officers? This is good, because it will create a lot of new jobs and since it's about public safety all the "profit" will be eaten up by new personnel. When they quit making money hand over fist because they have to pay people to witness the event and write a ticket, let's see how long the cameras last.

"NEW PORT RICHEY BALKS AT RED LIGHT CAMERA BILLS

NEW PORT RICHEY — Citing declining revenue from its red light cameras, New Port Richey has decided not to pay two months of its bills to the system's operators."
(Quote Taken from the Tampa Bay Times 10/24/2014.)

See they did not get the money they expected. It shows they are installing cameras just to generate revenue.

The cameras were out of order

The article Ron referred to is at http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/new-port-richey...

Another related article is at
http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/port-richey-rev...

GO CLEVLAND!

All the little chicks with crimson lips agree!!!

My vote is in, I voted early since I will be out of state on election day. And my vote was YES to ban camera's without an officer posted to write the tickets,

This got on the ballot by a grassroots effort, getting people to sign a petition to force the vote.

Leading up to election day, the opposite side of of the issue are crying the blues for camera safety. And of course no mention of lost revenue.

Now I'm not suggesting to anyone in Cleveland how to vote, I'm just going to say if you want to face your accuser at the time you would receive a ticket, then vote yes on the Issue.

The wording on Issue 35 before Cleveland voters is:

Shall the Charter of the City of Cleveland be amended to add new Chapter 40, Section 203, which provides that the City shall not use any traffic law photo-monitoring device for the enforcement of a qualified traffic law violation, unless a law enforcement officer is present at the location of the device and personally issues the ticket to the alleged violator at the time and location of the violation?

Yes
No

I"m in a city with both traffic camera's as well as "sky cops" cameras on poles that monitor certain sections of the city.
After spending millions on the sky cop cameras, and a control booth with police watching the monitors, the city is now asking citizens to come up with $3,000 to $6,000 (depending on the type of camera) to install a sky cop camera in their neighborhood (city ran out of money).

I am interested in the follow up in a few months to see if citizens will pay their own money to be put under surviellence.

When referendums about Red Light Cameras are on the ballot they almost always result in the banning of cameras.

This is mostly because the opponents of red light cameras have embraced the many misrepresentations and, sometime, outright lies that become part of the discussion. Once a lie is stated, it is very hard to counteract the impression left.

Take the statement "you have the right to face your accuser". This is something that someone who did not pay much attention is Civics class can easily latch onto when a red light opponent makes the claim that a violation caught be a red light camera means that you will not have the right to "face your accuser".

Well, is that true? What does the Sixth Amendment actually say?

Note the initial phrase "[i]n all criminal prosecutions". A red light ticket is a civil infraction so the Sixth Amendment does not apply.

Well, it ought to, many opponents will say - but the fact is that it does not.

More than that, one indeed does have the right to "face their accuser". As others have pointed out, the "accuser" is the jurisdiction that issues the ticket. And - there will be (and here I guess I need to say "should be" because all jurisdictions do not conform to this) a person who will testify that the two photos and the video of the infraction indicate that the violation occurred as stated.

Note that the "camera" is not the accuser just like "DNA evidence" is not the "accuser" in criminal proceedings - where the accused is to be given the opportunity to cross-examine the technician who processed the DNA and makes claims based on the processing of DNA. In a red light violation caught on film and video, the evidence is quite clear and is often looked at by the judge handling the case - picture 1: vehicle behind the stop line with the light clearly red; picture 2: vehicle proceeding through the intersection with the light clearly red; and ; video: showing the sequence documented by the photos.

If people want to oppose red light cameras, that is their right. However, they do not have the right, in my opinion, to influence others by misrepresentations and lies.

If Cleveland votes yes on this amendment it will only prove my theory of Cleveland... Shall we also have the police wait until you arrive before issuing you a parking ticket??? Sorry but I believe in the cameras... The only ones against them are those that are afraid they will get caught breaking the law...

If you already have an officer there for the citations, why bother with the camera at all? At that point, all it's doing is costing money, as the RLC company will still get a cut of every ticket if the camera is involved. Ditch the cameras, city makes more money.

If the person that received the ticket faced a Municipial Judge, your quote would be true. In Cleveland's case they only see a clerk.

"CLEVELAND, Ohio-A three-judge panel of the Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals unanimously ruled the city must allow motorists to fight tickets in Municipal Court, not before a hearing officer as it's been handled.

The court says Cleveland's system violates the requirement that tickets come under Municipal Court."

That's what started the grassroots movement. With a hearing officer you where always guilty.

I did receive a red light ticket once, it was clearly my wife driving not myself. I went in front of the hearing officer (parking violation department clerk) and explained to him you can clearly see that's not me, it fell on deaf ears. A judge would have seen it differently or a easier pill to swallow if not.

I don't speed or run red lights, or even lie to try to sway voters!

I do however see a money grab when I see one. Is a picture of your car stopped with a red light in front of you and your tires over the white line a $100.00 violation?
I would think not,let a judge decide not a clerk that's there to collect money, however if a police officer was posted the ticket wouldn't exsist to start with.

All the years that I have been a member here, I bet I haven't downloaded the camera files 8 times, but do report them as installed.

Previously, I said, in part

I used the word "often" because you are able to appear before a judge in my area.

There are several cities that are, unfortunately, like Cleveland. You go before a "hearing officer". That, to me, is a violation of "due process" and results in well deserved negative feeling against red light cameras. And, such action does violate constitutional rights.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/07/case_attacki...

Cleveland is one of several exceptions in the some 500 jurisdictions with red light cameras that make it difficult to contest a ticket.

Seems to me that the backlash is justified.

You are absolutely right, save the money, hire officers then fire the RLC vendor Zerox.

Farrissr let me say:
1) I haven't had a ticket in 48 years of driving, other than one from a red light camera. The picture showed a very nice looking blonde stopped at the red light with the front wheels just over the line. I wasn't driving, or even in the car.
Are you saying that's a valid $100. fine?

2) it's not the camera's that I see as the problem, rather the process afterward that I explained in earlier posts.

BTW, I have never even received a parking ticket, so a officer waiting to write a ticket for expired meters or parking ignorance in general doesn't bother me.

Have you ever been to Cleveland?

If it was your car that went through the red light and you weren't driving then have the person who was driving pay the ticket. I have had plenty of close calls with people speeding up to beat a red light from the opposite direction. Those getting tickets may be less aggressive trying to save a couple of minutes. Been to Cleveland and have no reason to go back!!!!

The initiative passed by about 3-1. Additional action may need to be taken by the Cleveland City Council before the cameras are gone.
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/11/cleveland_m...

I am glad the ballot initiative passed. I have been avoiding Cleveland since they put the cameras up. I now feel a whole lot better about visiting there, so I will likely go back sometime in the not too distant future.

Ecstatic the ban the RLC's passed.

Now if it could only happen in the rest of the country!