<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;houston&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:07:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>The Red Light Camera Saga In Houston Continues: Court Lets New Parties Enter The Case</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120126/03342117548/red-light-camera-saga-houston-continues-court-lets-new-parties-enter-case.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120126/03342117548/red-light-camera-saga-houston-continues-court-lets-new-parties-enter-case.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've been following the somewhat bizarre legal situation in Houston, involving a legal fight over the red light cameras in that city.  The details have been somewhat confusing, but the short summary is that there was a public referendum that voted <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101104/03572911723/houston-votes-to-turn-off-red-light-cameras-city-officials-trying-to-figure-out-how-to-cancel-contract.shtml">against the red light cameras</a>, which created a legal mess.  That's because when the cameras had been installed, the city signed a long-term contract with the company supplying them, ATS.  ATS then sued the city, and confusion ensued.  Some of the details were a bit hazy, but a new ruling lays it out pretty clearly.
<br /><br />
Basically, the city (which profits handsomely off of red light cameras) wanted to keep the cameras, and thus was upset about the referendum.  So when ATS sued the city over its attempt to follow the referendum and cancel the contract, the city had every incentive to basically throw the case and let ATS "win," since that meant the city itself would win in terms of revenue.  That's why the citizens who had put the referendum to ban red light cameras on the ballot decided to try to get listed as parties to the lawsuit as well -- to make sure that the public's rights were defended.  The lower court refused to let them get involved, but the 5th Circuit appeals court disagreed -- noting that it's in the public's interest that these people are allowed to take part in the case.
<br /><br />
What's interesting is how the court <a href="http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FCO%2020120124147.xml&#038;docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR" target="_blank">justifies allowing these people</a> to enter the case, noting that they spent considerable money on the campaign to get the referendum in the first place:
<blockquote><i>
These intervenors are unique because they engineered the drive that led to a city charter amendment over the nearly unanimous, well funded, and longstanding opposition of the Mayor and City Council. They have demonstrated a particular interest in cementing their electoral victory and defending the charter amendment itself. If the amendment is overturned, their money and time will have been spent in vain. Finally, they have raised substantial doubts about the City's motives and conduct in its defense of the litigation with ATS. Without these intervenors' participation, the City might well be inclined to settle the litigation on terms that preserve the adverse ruling on the charter amendment and thus preserve its flexibility to reinstate red light cameras in the future. This is no matter of simply defending City policy of one sort or another: it involves millions of dollars of revenue to City coffers during a period of considerable economic uncertainty.
</i></blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120126/03342117548/red-light-camera-saga-houston-continues-court-lets-new-parties-enter-case.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120126/03342117548/red-light-camera-saga-houston-continues-court-lets-new-parties-enter-case.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120126/03342117548/red-light-camera-saga-houston-continues-court-lets-new-parties-enter-case.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>convoluted...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120126/03342117548</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:01:10 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Legal Technicality Forces Houston To Turn Its Redlight Cameras Back On, Even Though It Wants Them Off</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110710/21434315033/legal-technicality-forces-houston-to-turn-its-redlight-cameras-back-even-though-it-wants-them-off.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110710/21434315033/legal-technicality-forces-houston-to-turn-its-redlight-cameras-back-even-though-it-wants-them-off.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Back in November, we noted that residents of Houston, Texas has <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101104/03572911723/houston-votes-to-turn-off-red-light-cameras-city-officials-trying-to-figure-out-how-to-cancel-contract.shtml">voted</a> to kill the city's redlight camera program.  At the time we pointed out one tiny complication: the city had a contract with the vendor that didn't run out for another four years.  However, it looks like the city just decided to listen to the will of the people (contracts be damned) and turned off the cameras.  The vendor, ATS, sued.  Now, samkash alerts us to the news that the city has <a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7645636.html" target="_blank">lost a court ruling</a> and is rushing to turn the cameras back on.  The whole thing sounds like a bit of a technicality, though.  As far as I can tell, the judge had originally rejected the plan to turn off the cameras, saying that the referendum itself, to repeal the law authorizing the cameras, had to happen within 30 days of it being passed.  It did not.  Thus, the judge found the referendum invalid.  That actually happened back in June.  The latest is that the city asked the judge if it could appeal his ruling, and the judge said no.  I don't fully understand all the details here, but the city seems to be claiming that the rejection is actually helpful to them, in that it gets them to a final decision sooner, which they can appeal.  Either way, the city says that it's turning the cameras back on, not because it wants to (though, they do appear to be making money), but because it wants to minimize the liability if it's found that they have to keep the contract.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110710/21434315033/legal-technicality-forces-houston-to-turn-its-redlight-cameras-back-even-though-it-wants-them-off.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110710/21434315033/legal-technicality-forces-houston-to-turn-its-redlight-cameras-back-even-though-it-wants-them-off.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110710/21434315033/legal-technicality-forces-houston-to-turn-its-redlight-cameras-back-even-though-it-wants-them-off.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>locked-in</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110710/21434315033</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 8 Nov 2010 05:13:44 PST</pubDate>
<title>Houston Votes To Turn Off Red Light Cameras; City Officials Trying To Figure Out How To Cancel Contract</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101104/03572911723/houston-votes-to-turn-off-red-light-cameras-city-officials-trying-to-figure-out-how-to-cancel-contract.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101104/03572911723/houston-votes-to-turn-off-red-light-cameras-city-officials-trying-to-figure-out-how-to-cancel-contract.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=btr1701">btr1701</a> alerts us to the news that Houston residents have <a href="http://www.kbtx.com/news/headlines/Houston_voters_put_the_brakes_on_the_citys_70_red-light_cameras_106661794.html?ref=794" target="_blank">voted to get rid of red light cameras</a> around Houston.  The vote was actually pretty close, with 52.82% wanting to ditch the cameras, and 47.18% wanting to keep them.  Of course, the cameras might not disappear all that quickly.  It turns out that the city -- which has made $44 million from the cameras -- has a contract with the camera provider that runs for another four years.  There is a 120-day cancellation policy, so the absolute soonest that the cameras might turn off is four months or so in the future.  However, the city is currently reviewing its "options."  And, of course, any citation sent out while this is going on is still a valid citation, so Houston drivers shouldn't run around thinking that the cameras are already off.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101104/03572911723/houston-votes-to-turn-off-red-light-cameras-city-officials-trying-to-figure-out-how-to-cancel-contract.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101104/03572911723/houston-votes-to-turn-off-red-light-cameras-city-officials-trying-to-figure-out-how-to-cancel-contract.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101104/03572911723/houston-votes-to-turn-off-red-light-cameras-city-officials-trying-to-figure-out-how-to-cancel-contract.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>redlight-cameras-get-the-red-light</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101104/03572911723</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:25:07 PST</pubDate>
<title>Unpatched, Virus-Infected Windows To Blame For Grounded French Fighter Pilots And Halt To Traffic Arrests In Houston</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090208/1333453687.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090208/1333453687.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Reader Calvin sends in two separate stories of government institutions who apparently failed to patch their Windows machines to protect against the Conficker virus -- despite the patch being available for many months.  First, Houston police have <a href="http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/khou090206_mh_court_system_down.2580b43d.html" target="_new">stopped arresting people with outstanding traffic warrants</a> and shut down the municipal court system for a few days to try to deal with their computer systems being overrun by the virus.  Then, across the Atlantic, the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4547649/French-fighter-planes-grounded-by-computer-virus.html" target="_new">French Navy is dealing with a similar problem</a>, forcing them to ground many of their fighter planes.  Some naval staff were told not to turn on their computers at all, as apparently the Navy's internal computer network has been hit by the virus as well.  Apparently, now might be a good time to run some traffic lights in Houston or invade France (kidding, kidding...).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090208/1333453687.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090208/1333453687.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090208/1333453687.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>gov't-security</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090208/1333453687</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>