Desperate Photo Enforcement Firms Sue Cities

by The Newspaper

Published: August 5th, 2011

desperate photo enforcement firms sue cities

Companies that operate red light cameras and speed cameras are facing increasing opposition across the country. In response, the firms have adopted a strategy of suing cities that have second thoughts about continuing to use cameras in their community. They have also been going after their own customers to collect as much revenue as possible.

On December 1, Redflex filed suit against Tempe, Arizona in Maricopa county Superior Court claiming the city owed $1.3 million in per-ticket fees for each driver mailed a photo ticket who decided to go to traffic school. The city claims it only collected $1.8 million in revenue from the program, mostly because last year’s payment rate was just 31 percent. Drivers realize in increasing numbers that tickets in the state can be ignored unless they are properly served.

City officials reacted angrily to the Redflex move. On July 19, the photo ticketing operation was shutdown after a 4-3 city council vote earlier that month refused to renew the contract with Redflex. The company explained its hardball tactics in a February 25 report to shareholders on the Australian Securities Exchange.

“As a result of the macro economic challenges facing the US market throughout 2010, and the current politically challenging times, new contract executions have declined,” the Redflex report stated. “This financial year, Redflex has focused its efforts on strengthening its business model through tighter contract language, (and) more aggressive collection efforts in key markets.”

The main competitor to Redflex, American Traffic Solutions (ATS), has likewise been feeling the marketplace squeeze. Most recently, Los Angeles, California just terminated its red light camera program, costing the company millions. ATS lashed out at San Bernardino after its city council voted unanimously in March to cancel its photo ticketing contract with ATS before the 2014 expiration date. In an April letter, Police Chief Keith L. Kilmer offered to pay ATS CEO James Tuton $175,000 in accordance with Section 4.4 of the contract governing cancellation fees. ATS insisted that it will not allow San Bernardino to get out of the contract.

“The termination/cancellation fee is inapplicable here because Section 4.4 specifically provides for a termination and cancellation fee only ‘in the event of termination due to a breach by the municipality,'” ATS attorney Vanessa Soriano Power wrote in a May 4 letter to the city. “Thus, Section 4.4 applies only where ATS elects to terminate the agreement.”

ATS insists that San Bernardino must pay $1,896,202.05 to end photo ticketing.

[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]

#Crime&Punishment #Government #Law #Taxes #Traffic

The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments

Join the conversation

4 of 16 comments

Fincar1 on Aug 05, 2011

It continually surprises me that I don't hear of more incidents of vandalism against these cameras.

Like Reply
- Golden2husky on Aug 05, 2011
  
  Me too, because it is so easy. Around here, the equipment is from ATS and they use a soft aluminum housing for the equipment and it is at shoulder level. A cordless drill with a "Christmas Tree" bit can quickly make a hole. A small funnel and a container of muriatic acid bought at any True Value will quickly render the system inoperative. Or the power line that enters the box usually has a LB or Jake type of fitting. Just remove a screw and you can slide the cover out of the way and expose the wires. Take a pair of dykes and cut away. Don't worry about 120V...you'll short it to ground or neutral and that't that...screw 'em. If they don't play fair, why should we...
  
  Like
PintoFan on Aug 05, 2011

Contract fraud is contract fraud, regardless of how much you dislike the contractor or his motives. I don't really have a lot of sympathy for these cities that opened up contracts with ATS or Redflex and are now trying to weasel their way out of them because of popular pressure. They should have considered the political implications of such action before they put their names on the dotted line. What is happening now is in many cases blatant breach of contract, and like it or not ATS and Redflex are both well within their rights to sue for damages. I would rather see the law upheld than contract rights violated just so people can be more careless at intersections. Color me skeptical about all these anti-camera lobbyists who claim to be acting in the interests of democracy and the rule of law, and then turn around and demand that said laws be violated so that their agendas can be upheld.

Like Reply
- Fvfvsix on Aug 06, 2011
  
  Sure, they can sue.. But they can't win. Tempe legally let its contract expire because there is no profit to be made with traffic cameras under Arizona law. Redflex pulled a Hugo Chavez when they tried to force Tempe to serve all its unpaid ticket violators in person (the only way they can legally collect around here) and failed miserably for obvious reasons. There was no ambiguity in the laws when Redflex started selling their snake oil- they simply thought they would be able to lobby (then Gov) Janet Napolitano to make the environment more conducive to the rape of AZ taxpayers. Go out of business Redflex. Do it soon.
  
  Like

Recent Comments

Redapple2 Love the wheels
Redapple2 Good luck to them. They used to make great cars. 510. 240Z, Sentra SE-R. Maxima. Frontier.
Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Off-road fluff on vehicles that should not be off road needs to die.
Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Saw this posted on social media; “Just bought a 2023 Tundra with the 14" screen. Let my son borrow it for the afternoon, he connected his phone to listen to his iTunes.The next day my insurance company raised my rates and added my son to my policy. The email said that a private company showed that my son drove the vehicle. He already had his own vehicle that he was insuring.My insurance company demanded he give all his insurance info and some private info for proof. He declined for privacy reasons and my insurance cancelled my policy.These new vehicles with their tech are on condition that we give up our privacy to enter their world. It's not worth it people.”