The Red Light Camera Saga In Houston Continues: Court Lets New Parties Enter The Case

from the convoluted... dept

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 against the red light cameras, 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.

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.

What's interesting is how the court justifies allowing these people to enter the case, noting that they spent considerable money on the campaign to get the referendum in the first place:
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.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Chosen Reject (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 8:15am

    Re: Re: Revenue?

    The real reason speeders aren't ticketed every time has nothing to do with manpower. It has everything to do with not wanting to make everyone indebted for their lives, just like you say, but not for some altruistic love the government has for its citizens. If every motorist was pulled over any time they went 1 mph over the speed limit, every elected official would be out of office within a month and speed limits would either be raised significantly or entirely abolished.

    To be honest, I think there ought to be higher speed limits and then a sign that gives the recommended speed. Meaning, a sign that says the road was designed for a certain speed given certain conditions (weather, car size, brake efficiency, traffic, etc) and then a sign indicates at what speed you'll be ticketed at. For example, if a road was designed for a speed of 40 mph based on the average car, with average tires, good weather conditions and light traffic, then if it's good weather conditions, no traffic and I'm driving a light car with awesome tires and brakes, I'll be free to drive 50 without having to be on the lookout for a cop. If it's bad weather or heavy traffic or I'm driving a heavy truck with bad tires and soft brakes, then I'll go 30 or whatever conditions call for. Then another sign that says the speed limit (you know, the actual limit) is 65. If you're driving faster than that then you'll get pulled over no matter what the conditions are.

    As it is, speed limits are set not only below what the road is designed for, but also well below what the average speed a person would drive if there were no speed limits on that road. We need to move away from every one driving at the limit, and instead try to get people driving at the recommended speed with a limit being a real limit.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.