Washington City Files Lawsuit to Block Anti-Camera Referendum

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper

Wenatchee, Washington is suing to stop the public from circulating a petition that would thwart the use of red light cameras and speed cameras in the city of 28,000. In March 2009, Wenatchee officials signed a contract with American Traffic Solutions (ATS), and they claimed this agreement would be “impaired” if voters had a say in whether or not the program should continue, according to the complaint filed last Tuesday in a Chelan County court.

“The city seeks a declaration that the proposed Wenatchee Initiative No. 1 is invalid because it is beyond the scope of the initiative power and violates the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution and the Washington State Constitution,” Steve D. Smith, attorney for the city, wrote.

The proposed initiative circulated by BanCams.com, Voters Want More Choices and the Washington chapter of Campaign for Liberty would not nullify the contract between ATS and Wenatchee. Instead, the ballot measure states that the city may not “install or use” automatic ticketing cameras without the prior approval of the voters and a two-thirds vote of the city council. In the event that such approval is given, the cost of a photo ticket would be reduced from the current $124 to an amount of the least expensive parking ticket. Nothing in the initiative prevents Wenatchee from paying ATS the agreed-upon $4800 per intersection monthly fee until the contract’s expiration on March 26, 2014. The city’s argument contends that the public may have no say whatsoever in the use of cameras.

“Washington state law specifically vests the local legislative authority with the power to enact ordinances governing the local government’s use and operation of automated traffic safety camera systems,” Smith wrote. “Proposed Wenatchee Initiative No. 1 would improperly interfere with the exercise of a power delegated by state law to a local legislative authority.”

The latter sentence appeared verbatim in a filing by a law firm hired by ATS in a case that unsuccessfully attempted to block last year’s referendum in Mukilteo where 70 percent of residents imposed limitations on the use of traffic cameras. The judge rejected the arguments of ATS ( view judge’s order).

The contract between Wenatchee and ATS contains a general force majeure clause nullifying the contract when performance is prevented by “causes beyond [a party’s] reasonable control and without its fault or negligence.” The document does not, however, contain more specific language found in other contracts that anticipate the possibility of changes in state law prohibiting the use of cameras.

The Chelan County court will be asked to decide whether the initiative would cause an impairment of a contract, or a breach of contract. Federal court precedents have upheld the right of states and other government entities to breach contracts as long as the same damages are paid as would apply if a private party breached the contract.

“The duty to keep a contract at common law means a prediction that you must pay damages if you do not keep it — and nothing else,” wrote Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1897.

[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]

The Newspaper
The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 6 comments
  • FleetofWheel FleetofWheel on Mar 07, 2011

    To paraphrase a founding document, the people have the right to change or abolish the govt. But according to Steve D. Smith, the people can't have a petition against red light cameras, how silly.

  • Jcwconsult Jcwconsult on Mar 25, 2011

    The cities and the camera vendors are terrified of public referendums on ticket cameras because they lose 100% of the time. Ticket cameras are just a cynical means to make money with improper and/or unethical traffic management policies. For ticket cameras to produce any significant revenue, the engineering of the posted speed limits and the yellow intervals of the traffic lights must be deliberately done improperly to maximize revenue. Correctly engineered speed limits and traffic lights maximize safety, but when done that way the cameras go bankrupt. Regards, James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, www.motorists.org, Ann Arbor, MI

  • 3SpeedAutomatic I'd like to see a sedan:[list][*]boxy in shape, avoid the windshield at a 65º angle BS[/*][*]tall greenhouse, plenty of headroom to sit straight up in the back seat[/*][*]V8, true dual exhaust, sans turbo, gobs of torque[/*][*]rear wheel drive, fully independent suspension, accommodate a stretched wheel base (livery service would go nuts)[/*][*]distinctive, tasteful colors (black, navy blue, claret, etc.)[/*][*]more substance, less flash on dashboard[/*][*]limited 5 yr run, get it while you can before the EPA shuts you down[/*][/list]
  • Bd2 Mark my words : Lexus Deathwatch Part 1, the T24 From Hell!
  • Michael S6 Cadillac is beyond fixing because of lack of investment and uncompetitive products. The division and GM are essentially held afloat by mega size SUV (and pick up truck GM) that only domestic brainwashed population buys. Cadillac only hope was to leapfrog the competition in the luxury EV market but that turned out disastrously with the botches role out of the Lyriq which is now dead on arrival.
  • BlackEldo I'm not sure the entire brand can be fixed, but maybe they should start with the C pillar on the CT5...
  • Bd2 To sum up my comments and follow-up comments here backed by some data, perhaps Cadillac should look to the Genesis formula in order to secure a more competitive position in the market. Indeed, by using bespoke Rwd chassis, powertrains and interiors Genesis is selling neck and neck with Lexus while ATPs are 15 to 35% higher depending on the segment you are looking at. While Lexus can't sell Rwd sedans, Genesis is outpacing them 2.2 to 1. Genesis is an industry world changing success story, frankly Cadillac would be insane to not replicate it for themselves.
Next