Port Lavaca, Texas residents want the opportunity to vote on the future of red light cameras in the Gulf Coast city of 12,000. Activists who formed the group Port Lavaca Citizens Against Red Light Cameras circulated a petition that would force an up or down vote regarding camera use onto the ballot. Under the city’s charter amendment rules, the group needed to secure 289 signatures. It collected 519, plus another one thousand signatures of support from motorists in the surrounding community.
“The response by everyone has been complete outrage over the cameras,” petition organizer Carl Baugh told TheNewspaper. “The most frequent complaint is that we have five cameras up at every money-making intersection but not one camera up were there has been the most fatalities.”
Baugh became involved in the issue after receiving a red light camera citation that he wanted to contest. He was told that he could have a meeting with a hearing officer, not an actual judge, if he drove four hours to the city of Harlingen. Baugh found this arrangement entirely unacceptable.
“It was time to go to the city and find out what it would take to start a petition and have this voted out by the citizens of Port Lavaca,” Baugh said. “Not ever having been involved with any politics, I struggled to figure everything out, but with the help of the Internet things became clearer on how to approach everything.”
The group’s effort so far has been successful with volunteers collecting support from what would have been a majority of voters who cast a ballot in the last election. Last year the same thing happened 150 miles away in Baytown where the referendum petition had the early endorsement of a majority of active voters, ensuring a successful outcome in November. In the past two years, residents in Houston and College Station have also voted down cameras. Nationwide, photo enforcement has been on the ballot fifteen times and has lost in every election (view list).
Baugh hopes to turn in the petition on Wednesday although he is concerned that city leaders have been dragging their feet in abiding by the city charter amendment process. Baugh did finally have his photo ticket appeal heard. He won.
A copy of the petition is available in a 90k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: 
Petition to Ban Red Light Cameras (Port Lavaca Citizens Against Red Light Cameras, 1/2/2011)
[Courtesy:Thenewspaper.com]
“Not ever having been involved with any politics, I struggled to figure everything out, but with the help of the Internet things became clearer on how to approach everything.”
Hopefully this will be a continuing trend of citizens getting involved and having their voices heard. Just don’t be surprised if you get called a tea bagger, Nazi or something worse.
People clearly want to interface with an officer if and when a traffic violation occurs. If that’s too inconvenient or expensive for the government, well too bad.
And people now see this as a revenue issue not a safety measure. The more you study red light running the more clear it becomes a camera has little impact on distracted drivers plowing through a red light.
The camera is helpful for proving who was supposed to stop after the fact.
Port Lavaca did it as solely a money-making deal as there’s little industry in the town, only some tourism, and not much else to do there.
Been through it way too many times to count, on our way to Lolita nearby.
The causeway in the postcard is now mostly underwater or torn down and used as good fishing spots by the local anglers.
While Port Lavaca itself is pretty sleepy, I’d wager that many of the workers from Alcoa’s Point Comfort alumina operation across the bridge reside in Port L. Aluminum is a pretty big industry for the Matagorta Bay area.
I forgot about the big plants in Pt. Comfort and the Alcoa plant. Drive past them going up to Lolita if we get shrimp in PL.
“The camera is helpful for proving who was supposed to stop after the fact.”
Constantly running video cameras whose output is fed into large video saving devices that can be tapped into and saved elsewhere in case a wreck occurs to assist in determining who is at fault in a wreck (akin to a review of a disputed NFL football play) done as a public service and to assist in weeding out the dangerous drivers, perhaps, and maybe to shorten lengthen criminal and/or civil trials and generally done as a public service and expose those lying or are lousy “eye witnesses” to events (with ample research revealing how often eye-witnesses are not all that accurate in their witnessing) and a pile of etceteras.
Over time, wouldn’t be THAT costly, would it? Savings in other areas and assisting in the prevention of blaming the innocent for causing a wreck seem to be laudable goals to coffee-guzzling me.
But, oust the revenue aspect of those cameras. Make the local governments work for their income.
Sure, police-people are not always 100 percent accurate and I KNOW a certain percentage lie, etc.
I also know that cops are not always the brainiest common-sense-bearing humans in the herd.
Watch that Cops TV show for proof of the averageness and ample sub-average mentality of so many “men in blue”.
Shudder along with me at the, in my opinion, definite sub-par abilities of the “wimmenfolk in blue”.
((((((SHUDDER)))))))))
Anyway.
Profit uber alles.
Of course, as evidenced with a horde of other aspects of modern-day USA, one court, one judge, with the swipe of a pen, can nullify, totally negate the will of EVERY voter in a locale if that judge personally disagrees….. and I am NOT referring to some illogical attempt to reinstate chattel slavery, either!!!!!!!