Washington: Anti-Camera Group to Shame City Council

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper

Opponents of automated ticketing machines in Monroe, Washington have turned to a new tactic in battling a city council that refuses to give up the use of red light cameras and speed cameras. Instead of engaging the city and a wealthy traffic camera company in a costly legal battle, the group BanCams.com decided Wednesday to shame the council at every election until officials follow the public will.

Nearly two out of every three active voters in the city signed a petition calling for a vote on ending the use of photo enforcement. Earlier this month the Snohomish County auditor determined this measure qualified for the ballot, but the city council on Tuesday unanimously voted to ignore the petition despite a state law requiring the council either to adopt the proposal as written or submit it to voters.

The level of voter support for the petition is similar to that found in Mukilteo last year where 71 percent ultimately voted to ban cameras. Traffic camera companies American Traffic Solutions (ATS) and Redflex Traffic Systems of Australia realize the only way to save their programs is to file lawsuits to block the vote from happening — a practice that the state supreme court is currently reviewing. Monroe officials decided to side with the Redflex/ATS strategy.

“You made a huge mistake suing your own citizens rather than listening to them,” initiative sponsors Brian Kohn, Nick Sherwood, Alex Rion and Tim Eyman wrote to the city council yesterday. “The people of Monroe deserve a public vote now, not later. And their decision should be implemented. You are elected to represent the people, not rule over them. We will continue to fight for the rights of the two-thirds of active voters who signed on to a public vote and we will not stop until they get it.”

The new initiative sets up a non-binding advisory vote to be held at every primary and general election scheduled between 2012 and 2013. If approved, the language presented on the ballot would take a dig at the council each time.

“We, the citizens of Monroe, advise the mayor and city council to immediately remove the automatic ticketing cameras in Monroe city limits and immediately repeal any ordinance authorizing the cameras,” Monroe Initiative Number Two states. “The passage of this advisory vote proposition means the people reject the cameras and want them removed right away. The voters want the mayor and city council to employ the same zeal and determination they displayed when they sued their own citizens and utilize their lawyers to find every way possible to get out of the contract with the red-light camera company and if necessary, to pay off the company now so the cameras can be removed immediately. Shall this advisory measure be approved or rejected?”

The advisory votes would be discontinued once the cameras were removed from the city limits. The back page of each petition includes photos of each city councilman and the mayor with the caption: “Refused to let the people vote / Representing red light camera companies, not Monroe’s citizens.”

[ Courtesy:Thenewspaper.com]

The Newspaper
The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 7 comments
  • Russycle Russycle on Jun 30, 2011

    I always figured city officials stuck with the cameras because they're desperate for revenue in today's anti-tax climate. But the way they're digging their heels against the public will, I'm beginning to suspect other motives. Someone needs to take a hard look at their personal finances and see if there's any shady income.

  • Dynasty Dynasty on Jun 30, 2011

    Monroe, WA is small town hicksville. No doubt the Council is corrupt as corrupt can be.

  • Ronin It's one thing to stay tried and true to loyal past customers; you'll ensure a stream of revenue from your installed base- maybe every several years or so.It's another to attract net-new customers, who are dazzled by so many other attractive offerings that have more cargo capacity than that high-floored 4-Runner bed, and are not so scrunched in scrunchy front seats.Like with the FJ Cruiser: don't bother to update it, thereby saving money while explaining customers like it that way, all the way into oblivion. Not recognizing some customers like to actually have right rear visibility in their SUVs.
  • MaintenanceCosts It's not a Benz or a Jag / it's a 5-0 with a rag /And I don't wanna brag / but I could never be stag
  • 3-On-The-Tree Son has a 2016 Mustang GT 5.0 and I have a 2009 C6 Corvette LS3 6spd. And on paper they are pretty close.
  • 3-On-The-Tree Same as the Land Cruiser, emissions. I have a 1985 FJ60 Land Cruiser and it’s a beast off-roading.
  • CanadaCraig I would like for this anniversary special to be a bare-bones Plain-Jane model offered in Dynasty Green and Vintage Burgundy.
Next