On his last working day...
"Milhous" Taft decided his reputation couldn't get any worse, so he vetoed a bill to restrict spycams at intersections, citing "home rule".
If the Village of Windham decided to legalize marijuana smoking within village limits, or NOT ban smoking in restaurants, I'd like to see how that "home rule" business would play.
Don't let the door hit you on your behind, Bobby.
Comments
Posted by: James
Posted on: January 6, 2007 04:20 PM
Totally bollux for Taft, Cleveland, and the other major cities for cheating the taxpayers. So when will people start developing jammers for those red light cameras?
Posted by:
Posted on: January 6, 2007 05:25 PM
..."cheating the taxpayers" that are breaking laws. Not much of a leg to stand on.
Posted by: M.
Posted on: January 6, 2007 06:12 PM
"Anonymous" has a point, and if in fact the driving force between intersection cameras was to improve public safety, then there would be no problem, at least from me. I've nearly been hit by red-light-runners at intersections several times; anything that makes such drivers think twice is a worthwhile option. But of course, the major rationale, if unstated, is in fact that a locality can effectively police an intersection and (primarily) collect revenue in the form of tickets without actually paying anyone to patrol the area. This was seen in a Georgia town a few years ago, when the installation of an intersection camera proved so effective that the town council demanded it be removed - no one was running the intersection anymore, and thus a revenue source had dried up.
All of which is to say that motive is everything.
Posted by: James
Posted on: January 9, 2007 09:45 AM
Installing red light cameras at intersections that have been problematic in the past are justified. If a city wants to install a RL camera at every traffic light along Chester or Carnegie, it promotes the viewpoint that the city is interested in generating revenue for their budget instead of promoting safety.