Posted on 11/29/2010 12:03:55 PM PST by a fool in paradise
Federal Judge Blocks Red Light Camera Removal in Houston, Texas
Houston, Texas city attorneys attempt to preserve red light camera program by throwing lawsuit filed with vendor.
A federal judge issued an order last Friday blocking the immediate removal of red light cameras from Houston, Texas intersections. On November 2, voters adopted an amendment to the city charter making photo tickets unenforceable, against the wishes of the Houston city council and the private vendor that operates the cameras, American Traffic Solutions (ATS). Over the Thanksgiving holiday, US District Court for the Southern District of Texas Judge Lynn N. Hughes worked out a deal with the city and ATS to preserve the cameras, for now.
"The city of Houston and American Traffic Solutions, Inc, will continue to collect the fines for the traffic violations that occurred through November 15, 2010," Hughes wrote in his order. "The cameras will not be removed during the pendency of the litigation."
Hughes had called a colloquy among lawyers for the city -- David Feldman and Hope Reh -- and the lawyers for ATS -- Andy Taylor and George Hittner -- on the day after Thanksgiving. Although the city technically filed suit against ATS, the city staff do not want to see the cameras removed any more than ATS does. The parties hashed out a compromise that happened to give ATS everything the firm wanted.
"ATS requests the court to preserve the status quo by enjoining the city from terminating the public safety program or otherwise implementing Proposition 3, pending an adjudication of these fundamental issues of law affecting not only these parties, but the general public at large," Taylor wrote in its brief to the court filed Wednesday.
The actions in Houston track what happened last year in the city of College Station after voters approved an anti-camera referendum. Attorneys for the city attempted to lose the lawsuit that ATS filed to overturn the result of the public vote. Ultimately, public pressure on elected officials forced the College Station cameras to come down, even though a local judge ruled against the vote. ATS is hoping it can win this time by arguing not only that voters have no right to overturn a city council decision through the charter amendment process, but that no power can take down the red light cameras.
"Both the US Constitution and the Texas Constitution prohibit legislation impairing the obligation of contracts," Taylor wrote. "The purported charter amendment cannot validly be upheld if doing so would in any way impair the city's ability to fulfill its pre-existing contractual obligations to ATS."
Those obligations are iron clad, ATS argued, thanks to the city's own actions. The firm pointed out that Houston did have a contract provision that would have allowed a "termination for convenience" without financial penalty. Just three days before this provision would have taken effect, the city signed a new agreement with no termination provision in an attempt to avoid a proposed ban on new red light camera contracts, House Bill 300, that passed in the state House but was blocked in the Senate.
"The city, fearful of HB300, did not want to be forced to terminate the agreement upon the passage of a new state law and therefore, removed the termination provisions of the agreement entirely by clearly stating in the amendment that it 'remains in effect until May 27, 2014,'" Taylor explained. "The city also removed 'unless sooner terminated under this agreement' phrase that appeared in the original agreement. Had the city intended to keep its termination options available to it, it could have easily done so."
Judge Hughes has set a Friday hearing for arguments in the case.
Hughes had called a colloquy among lawyers for the city -- David Feldman and Hope Reh -- and the lawyers for ATS -- Andy Taylor and George Hittner -- on the day after Thanksgiving. Although the city technically filed suit against ATS, the city staff do not want to see the cameras removed any more than ATS does. The parties hashed out a compromise that happened to give ATS everything the firm wanted."ATS requests the court to preserve the status quo by enjoining the city from terminating the public safety program or otherwise implementing Proposition 3, pending an adjudication of these fundamental issues of law affecting not only these parties, but the general public at large," Taylor wrote in its brief to the court filed Wednesday.
The actions in Houston track what happened last year in the city of College Station after voters approved an anti-camera referendum. Attorneys for the city attempted to lose the lawsuit that ATS filed to overturn the result of the public vote.
Men in Black. Subverting the will of The People. This has got to stop.
ABC channel 13 glosses over the detail that the City of Houston is NOT acting on behalf of the public in a manner to see the revenue stream dry up.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7813385
Unseat the corrupt government through elections and recalls.
Damn democrat dictatorship around here.
Mayor Bill White did the same thing repeatedly.
Once again, the elected government has become the enemy of the citizenry. Somehow, we keep doing this over and over.
Meanwhile, the desires of the city citizenry can simply be dismissed.
These local tyrants (and globalists-central planners and elitists) are somtimes worse than our Federal officials, IMO, I have seen it before..
Judge Hughes is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a one-world government promoting organization.
I wonder why he blocked the measure.
Another NWO jackass.
The Oligarchy..protecting one another....
California voted against Gay Marriage 2x and against public money used for illegal aliens called Prop. 187 and judges (many ACLU types) overrule the People.
I think the judges need to be frogmarched to prison, not given raises.
Except he betrayed that stance when he declared that he would continue to prosecute citizens carrying firearms in their cars as felons even though the state legislature permitted it because he said that the state supremes could determine what the law actually permitted or did not permit.
Certainly the homosexual stance from day 1 of the Lawrence case was “we will overturn this law in the courts”. Not overturn the charges. Overturn the law.
Glad to see Chuck gone. Too bad it was over a scandal and not just his own scandalous performance.
These red light cameras are not about safety. It’s all about generating revenue.
The will of the people be damned.
They could have kept the clause in the contract that would have given them an out, but they purposely took it out to prevent them from being legislated out of existence.
Slimy ba$t@rd$.
There are plenty of examples as well of some agency in the government using taxpayer funds to combat the taxpayers who are fighting an uphill battle to end some government power grab or edict.
Aw hell. A couple of 5.56mm rounds will take them down easy.
The city ads on behalf of KEEPING the red light cameras denounced some "shady" monied interest that would profit from the removal of these cameras.
Seems those who made revenue from the cameras and the lawyers who would offer to clear this from your record stood to make more money.
The judge had no choice in this. The politicians that acted unilaterally against the public will to thwart upcoming legislation should be tarred and feathered and sent out on a rail. The towns people need to march on city hall and take out the trash.
Our communists judge and his counter parts in action. We the people are just slaves to our masters.
Everyone on this forum is going to blow hot air about these things, but no one is going to do anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.