Houston red light cameras.

[carrbowl]

This is really ticking me off. For me it doesn't matter if you like them or not. What bothers me is "we" have a contract with a company to have them. How in the world did we even get to have a vote to get rid of them? The city is already millions in debt...now because of the vote, we have to spend more millions to fight this in court. It seems like such a scam...

[TheFantasticG]

It was just another revenue builder for the city. The word "kickback" comes to mind.

[ChrisTX]

Originally Posted by TheFantasticG

It was just another revenue builder for the city. The word "kickback" comes to mind.

I never saw any kickbacks when I was dealing with all that. And I certainly would have been one to get offered a kickback.

It comes down to ATS fearing the loss of around 8.5 million a year. That's roughly what those cameras are paying ATS. Everyone raced to change their contracts last year when SB300 was being a little threatening, but the opt out would never be fully taken out. That was left in the contract I revised for the city I worked for.

I have a video from a Houston red light camera. These gangsters get into a shootout in the middle of the intersection. One guy dies, and traffic just drives around the body when the light turns green. The only person that came out to help was the clerk at the convenient store on the corner. People in Houston amaze me.

[TheFantasticG]

Then you'd be amazed by people in any modern city as most would do the same.

I for one am glad to see them leaving.

[carrbowl]

see I don't want to go down this road...I don't care if you like them or not. To me that's beside the point. It's kind of like the president, we voted, it's that way until the contract is up. Once it is up, then we will vote again. Put to revote and spend all this money because some people didn't like the way it was done in the first place? If I was a city employee and was asked to take days off next year to make up for the shortfall I would ask a lawyer to take it out of their pocket instead.

[Steelsun]

The nice little "Opt Out" that is in most of the contracts was taken out of the Houston one at the request of the then mayor. No legitimate reason at all for that unless some $$$ changed hands.

[Cope]

Originally Posted by ChrisTX

I never saw any kickbacks when I was dealing with all that. And I certainly would have been one to get offered a kickback.

It comes down to ATS fearing the loss of around 8.5 million a year. That's roughly what those cameras are paying ATS. Everyone raced to change their contracts last year when SB300 was being a little threatening, but the opt out would never be fully taken out. That was left in the contract I revised for the city I worked for.

I have a video from a Houston red light camera. These gangsters get into a shootout in the middle of the intersection. One guy dies, and traffic just drives around the body when the light turns green. The only person that came out to help was the clerk at the convenient store on the corner. People in Houston amaze me.

Like people don't kill each other anywhere else but Houston? Give me a break.

[Patti Edens]

Originally Posted by carrbowl

This is really ticking me off.

Me too and I don't even live in Houston.

Originally Posted by carrbowl

How in the world did we even get to have a vote to get rid of them?

That's what I don't understand. It seems some lawyer followed all the rules for getting it on the ballot. I think the city should have spent some big bucks before the election explaining to the voters that even if they did vote to have the cams removed, it would be X number of years before they could do it because they had a contract. Then, people would still have voted them out, but they wouldn't have been disappointed when it didn't happen right away and the City could complete the contract with no grief.

This whole thing stinks. The system for getting props on the ballot is broken, along with a whole lot of other things that government (at all levels) comes up with.

[ChrisTX]

Originally Posted by Steelsun

The nice little "Opt Out" that is in most of the contracts was taken out of the Houston one at the request of the then mayor. No legitimate reason at all for that unless some $$$ changed hands.

I'm sure they have an 'opt out', but ATS is disputing the wording. I've been down that road. Those contracts are so complex that you can easily run into a dispute. The Tuton brothers will be your friend until you start talking about taking a dollar from them. The change was made when SB300 came out. I was in Austin testifying before the Urban Affairs committee on those bills, and Isett (the recently retired anti-camera guy) was over that particular bill. It was tacked on at the last minute, so all the cities just went to extend their contracts, given the wording that was added to SB300. I revised the contract for the city I worked for to get the contract through the 2011 legislative session. During the back and forth, ATS tried to slip some wording in that would have allowed them to make more money by doing market adjustments, but I caught it and removed it.

ATS gets around $4800 a month per camera. Houston has about 145 of them. You do the math. That's a fight they're willing to take on, particularly since they just lost the big suit against Redflex.

[ronocnikral]

what's the complaint? lost revenue? or that we got to vote on it?

here's how this all plays out, they go to court, people argue, they settle at some lower price than what the contract is worth it goes away. what's the issue? happens all the time.

if you're going to start with gov't waste, why pick this topic? or a better question, why just this topic?

move along people, nothing to see here.

[janikphoto]

There are several privatized/contracted parts of public life that was "supposed" to bring in lots of money, but only wound up making the contractor rich. The red light cameras are no different.