Red light cameras : the truly lawless are exempt

Count me as one of the "not fans" of the cameras the city is planning to install at six intersections.

But apart from that, let me correct some of the errors in the editorial about the cameras. ("Red light cameras ultimately will stop the truly lawless" Manteca Bulletin, 6 Sep 08)

If the system is really "not costing anything," why did the chief of police ask for $189,000 to be transferred to a fund? We don't know, the chief didn't address the issue in any comprehensible way. His only comment in response to my question was "it was to make it... uh.. revenue neutral."

Next, no one is complaining about the $189,000. All I asked was what was it for? And furthermore, this is not the cost of the system. The editor is confusing this amount with the separate cost of installation. The "cost of installation" could be anything, we don't even have an estimate yet. And yes, this is the thing that we don't have to pay back so long as we keep the contract for three years.

(Three year contract? What could go wrong? Ever sign up for a contract for a cell phone? No chance of any regret there!)

Another mistake the editor makes is assuming that the council would have to cancel the contract to be responsible for the money (and they wouldn't be "that boneheaded"). Well, not so. Nestor can also cancel the contract at any time and demand immediate payment.

If you look on page two of that fine print, it lists a bunch of things that will permit Nestor to consider the city to be in breach of contract. I won't list them all, but one example: If someone contests a traffic ticket issued by the red light system and the City of Manteca doesn't present a "good enough case" in court or "do enough to prosecute" the case, then Nestor can cancel the contract and demand full payment immediately. In other words (if they want to be strict), if the police officer is 15 minutes late to court (or doesn't show up) just once then Nestor can demand immediate payment of perhaps millions of dollars! The contract has other provisions that make it possible for Nestor to cancel any time (and demand that huge payment immediately).

Although I never made the "Big Brother" argument, others have. But far from poo-pooing it with "get real," the editor should consider that the argument is much more than simple "invasion of privacy" or simply taking pictures of people who might be camera shy.

No, the real problem (we're getting real) is that now law enforcement will be taken from the public street, from public view and instead done in a Star Chamber, perhaps a single man reviewing evidence in secret.

The camera company doesn't actually issue any "citations." They refer all the pictures of the red light violations to the police department. Where the police then do ... something. That's where the big brother aspect comes in. What if the picture shows one of their friends? Another "police officer?" What if the picture is just a little blurry. Is it a nice car? Does it look like the person has money? What about the race of the driver? How about a driver that's on the list of known "problem people" that the Manteca Police admits keeping? (the one with 300 or 200 or 1000 names on it depending on who you ask).

You can use your own imagination. But there was a reason why this country was founded on the notion that laws are executed in the open in a process that's open to scrutiny by any person. The red light camera citation decisions will be made in the proverbial darkened room by some unknown guy in some unknown place for secret reasons. That is, unless they agree to oversight but I'm not holding my breath on that.

The editor then claims that it's not a cash cow because the city only gets 20 percent of the fines. That's only $80. Can someone explain to me the logic of that? Like, does it become a "cash cow" if it's $90? $150? $174.50? Is there some line somewhere above $80 called the "cash cow" line?

There's some nonsense about some extraordinary costs of writing traffic tickets, so it's not profitable. Let's not even discuss that because the editor is mixing two different accounting schemes, one for a human writing the tickets and another for the automated system. But he does let it slip out that a Manteca "police officer" makes about $110,000 per year. No, that's not "equipment" or "fuel costs" that's the Measure M sales tax increase being funneled into the lavish pay raises. For some reason, I've noticed the city never wants to say how much their policemen are being paid -- I think wisely because the average resident would probably be appalled at the greed of their public servants' union bosses. (No disrespect to the public servants) But I digress.

The most deceptive part of the editorial is at the end, where he asserts that the law will eventually "catch up" to all those who are exempt from the red light enforcement.

Let me go back a minute 'cause you're probably asking yourself, "there's people exempt from getting traffic tickets for running red lights?" The answer is yes. Because of recent court rulings, the picture of the driver taken by the red light camera must match the DMV records for the vehicle. Notice I didn't say match that person's drivers license. In other words the vehicle is registered to someone. That someone has a picture on file with the DMV. That file photo must match the driver that the red light camera photographs. Now, I don't know how much they have to match, but they have to somehow resemble each other.

The practical upshot of this is that only people driving a car registered themselves can be cited by the red light camera system. And only those where you can get a clear picture of the driver. Notice who this leaves out. Anyone driving a motorcycle with a helmet that covers their face. Anyone driving the company car or truck. If you want to get clever, a husband and wife can register each other's cars then they can run red lights all day long and be immune from the cameras. Also exempted is any of the many people who don't bother to get drivers licenses.

Now this is where the Manteca Bulletin editor is completely wrong. There will be no "eventual catching up with" those people who are exempt. There will be no "bench warrants" issued for failing to pay traffic tickets. There will be no eventual confiscation of vehicles! The reason is simple: There will be no tickets issued! No tickets, no court records, no bench warrants, no confiscations -- no penalties whatsoever for those in the "exempted class" which includes criminals or illegal aliens driving without licenses.

And by the way, the editor misstates how the "collision avoidance system" works. It doesn't hold the green light -- it holds the red light on the cross street. If it held the green light, then all you'd have to do is to gun the engine and the Nestor system would hold the green light for you. No one would ever get a traffic ticket! Because if the system held the green light they'd never get the red light and they can't get a ticket for "red light running" can they?

Sure, we each have our own opinions as to what "sounds like an effective system" but here's where science gets in the way. It doesn't matter what I think, it doesn't matter what you think or what the councilman thinks or what the newspaperman thinks. What matters is what the science actually tells us -- what there is actual evidence for. And so far, neither the company, nor the council nor the police nor the newspaper has provided one tiny scrap of evidence that the system is effective in any way in actually preventing accidents or improving safety. In fact, they haven't even shown by any study or evidence that their system of fiddling with the lights doesn't cause other hidden dangers or more accidents than it's supposed to prevent.

Maybe asking for scientific evidence is asking too much.

Market gives Nestor red light

Has anyone from the city looked into the financial health of Nestor Traffic Systems?

The City of Manteca is considering contracting with Nestor Traffic Systems for a series of "red light cameras." A public hearing on the issue is scheduled for Tuesday, 2 Sep 08 at 7pm at "city hall."

Here's an article that says they are "beset with losses." And they are hugely in debt. And that's from April of this year. Last year the firm was delisted from the NASDAQ. And evidently, since then things have only gotten worse -- the stock price dropped from 22 cents per share last May to 8 cents a share today. One of the principles has left the board of directors and there's "no plans to replace him."

From the looks of the balance sheet, they have suffered huge losses and the losses continue. They might be on target to only lose 6 cents a share this year, which is good 'cause the stock is only worth 8 cents a share!

One of the statements reads:

The opinion of our auditors ... and as further discussed by management ... contained an unqualified opinion ... regarding our substantial net losses in recent years which raised doubt regarding the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. ... We continue to seek additional sources of equity and debt financing to fund system installations ... however, there can be no assurance that the funds will be available on terms acceptable to us, if at all.

Clarence A. Davis, Chief Executive Officer of Nestor, Inc., stated the following: "Although we are disappointed that the market has not yet recognized the dramatic advances the Company has made, we remain confident...."

Evidently the City of Santa Fe Springs was one of those that hasn't yet recognized the dramatic advances: They terminated their contract with Nestor saying "it was not satisfied with the service provided by the Rhode Island-based Nestor Traffic Systems..." and "the council was dissatisfied with the company," said City Manager Fred Latham. Areas of concern included customer service, experience and accessibility, he said.

Lathrop mayor being "smeared" in stealthy blog

A photo lifted from manteca live! was used in the "anonymous smear site." And it's right at the top of the page! I thought it looked familiar! Here is a side by side comparison. I want you to know there is no permission to use this picture and there's no association between this blog and the anonymous smear site.

For the non-computer savy let me briefly explain how someone can simply "grab" a photograph from any website. All you need to do is right click on a picture and you can save it to your disk on your computer. There's really no technical way to stop this. (Some suggest you can "mark" your pictures to help prevent this. That's possible but impractical.) This is not to say it's right or "legal" to steal someone's photographs. But what I'm saying is that it's very easy to simply "take" a photograph from a web site like this one and just use it without permission for whatever nefarious purpose.

Also, I want to caution the reader also to be careful about interpreting "information" presented in some web site. There's an implication in some of the text of the smear site that "they are trying to find us! But since everything is 'true' there's nothing they can do." In other words they are telling you "you should believe this -- after all I couldn't say it if wasn't true!" Never assume that what you read on line must be true, or else the government would order them to remove it. It's not that simple! It can take months or years and many dollars to fight a first amendment case and even then it can hinge on esoteric definitions of what is "true" and the various standards for libel for public figures and so on and so on. There is no "they" that you can just call up or email and tell them to "remove something from the Internet 'cause it's not true." It's a highly complex issue and I can't caution you enough to never assume something is true because "otherwise they would make them remove it."

I agree with Jackie that the candidates should disavow themselves from this sneaky web site. The people deserve to know if any of the candidates are responsible for this abomination.

Local Smear Campaign

When I heard about the website devoted to smearing Lathrop's mayor Kristy Sayles, being interested in all things political, I immediately had to take a look. My first reaction was, "this is why people don't run for public office." (And thank you Manteca Bulletin for giving the deplorable piece-of-crap website publicity it doesn't deserve.) I don't live in Lathrop but I follow what goes on there since it's so close by and we have friends that live there.

Regardless of how I feel personally about Lathrop's mayor, I gotta say that I was pretty much horrified by what I read on the "anonymous" website. It's basically a litany of her personal life and the goings on there, past and present, and has little or nothing to do with how she's performed as mayor or why she should be voted out of office.

The Bulletin calls the website "slick" and that it is. It's also one of the meanest smear campaigns I've seen and the "webmaster" seems to personally take great delight in airing Sayles' dirty laundry and responding to comments, maybe a little too much delight. It borders on the obsessive. I also have a pretty good idea who might be behind it and I'm sure a lot of other people have a good idea too. Do I need to say that it's someone who's also running for public office in Lathrop?

When I first looked at the "anonymous" website there was something very familiar about it but I couldn't figure out what it was until today when Joe told me to take a look at one of his older posts on our blog here. The anonymous website owner/owners stole the photo they used for their website's logo from MantecaLive.com. We were not asked permission by anyone to use the photo which was taken by my blog partner. Not only is this a theft of our intellectual property, but it taints us and our blog by associating us with what may be a libelous website trying to destroy the reputation of a city official.

There's something fishy in Lathrop and it stinks to high heaven (I know, it's a terrible cliché but it fits). It's pretty obvious that Kristy Sayles has attracted some enemies during her tenure as mayor. What is not obvious is exactly what she's done to garner such wrath. We've heard she "took money from developers" but so what? Almost every single person in an elected position in Manteca and Lathrop has taken money from developers. How many of them have been investigated by a grand jury?

When's the last time you heard of a city council rejecting the findings of a grand jury about their own mayor? That's one of the issues on the website dedicated to her political demise. If a grand jury can find no evidence of wrong-doing, then who can? Shall we try our politicians in the media (and I'm including websites and blogs in that definition) by repeating half-truths and innuendo and stating it as fact and hide behind the veil of anonymity the internet offers? Do we want to elect people to represent us who engage in such tactics? I don't think we do.

I think the people of Lathrop deserve to know who's behind the "anonymous" website dedicated solely to ruining the reputation and career of a publicly elected official. Whether you like the mayor or not, this is truly politics at its dirtiest. If I lived in Lathrop, I'd want to know who was behind it because I think it says far more about their character than it does about anything else.

I call upon all the candidates on the ballot for Lathrop public office to publicly denounce the anonymous website and disassociate themselves with it. Maybe by process of elimination, the truth will come out.

Manteca turns 90!

Manteca was incorporated 1918 -- 90 years ago. Manteca city officials had a small party at the "Civic center" government compound.

Highlights include persons more than 90 years of age getting certificates. A short interview with a fellow named Bologna (named after the city not the sandwich, as he explained). He and a friend are looking for their names on a photograph of a wall showing veterans of the 2nd World War. Notice when I ask "what did they call you in the army?" You can almost see the thoughts of far away places well up when he answers. Also included is the music and refreshment served and some of the displays of historic items. Lastly, included is a rare and personal interview with the City Clerk of Manteca about how her family travelled to and settled in the California's central valley. Even her father chimes in, it's like an oral history!

Caltrans meeting

Here is the video of the meeting with Caltrans. The subject of the meeting was to present several options for how to improve the highway off ramps (interchanges) on I-99. Now, this may seem like a meeting on how to watch paint dry, but apparently there is great public interest.

The issue came up briefly the night before at the City Council meeting and I was surprised to find the meeting room was packed with people. There is a a lot of interest because it directly involves moving some homes (takings of property) for the right of way and various other issues (the officials use the dramatic sounding term "impacts").

Curiously, the council members seem to side with those who wanted option 1 or 2 and opposed option 3 and encouraged the people to speak out and make their voices heard to "protect their interests." What is curious to me is that, as you can see from the question and answer interview toward the end of the video, the engineers seem to say that option 3 was the best for 1) movement of traffic, 2) traffic safety and 3) the least "taking" of homes or land by eminent domain. (The terms condemnation, taking, and eminent domain are used interchangeably in the video).

The third option obviously seemed best. But the public seemed to oppose that because it would destroy or "impact" the "character" of the road. As for if this is the serious concern for the preservation of a way or life or if it's narrow minded standing in the way of progress I don't claim to have an answer.

I asked those three questions directly at the end of the video. In addition to some other questions... you'll have to watch. hehe. I didn't really mean make light of the issues it's just that the poor guy was getting pummelled with serious questions and complaints. And I'm sorry for the bad camera work, it was just me filming and it's the "gut cam" some of the time and the acoustics in there were terrible.

In the first part you don't need to really hear anything you can see people pointing to charts and things. Notice there was a stenographer taking public commentary. The video is highly edited but I tried not to alter the meaning of anything. The guy in the middle of the film did want them to condemn his house and he favored that options so he could move, maybe not surprisingly if the other option is to live by the highway off ramp. And at the end, I hope you will watch that, the engineer makes an impassioned plea about how seriously he views the taking of homes. Then I asked the ratings questions... you'll have to watch... it's odd though how the silliest question gets the best and most direct and to the point response...

And thanks for tuning in!

permit me

Here I explain some of the issues surrounding the issuance of a permit to sell booze at a local store. Yes, this should be a routine matter. But for the viewers and for the council I examine the issues in a little more depth and show the area in question.

It's suddenly become controversial to issue a permit in Manteca! One was denied last month and now the neighbors are pressuring the council to deny the permit here also. The neighbors had complained of annoying people with car stereos and the like.

I did note with some surprise and annoyance that when I first arrived, there was a guy playing a loud car stereo there! (Edit: I had previously thought the street vendor was just outside the city's border. However, the street vendor is within the city limits according to Google Maps. That raises a whole other set of questions such as why aren't they enforcing the noise ordinance?)

As you know, I have always advocated in favor of the hard working street vendor -- but not one that annoys the neighborhood with blasting "music" all day! And it was blasting even though it may not sound like it on the video. (An old VHS tape camcorder with poor audio and it was noisy there. And you can still clearly hear the car stereo over the noisy traffic!)

Not shown on the tape, the guy turned down the stereo when customers came by -- so he could conduct commerce -- but he didn't seem to care much about others in the neighborhood trying to conduct commerce or anything else! And also, when the guy noticed me filming, the music mysteriously disappeared. hmmm.

The real anoyance in that area is the poorly behaved street peddler. I support the granting of the permit because it's not fair to punish the merchant for what is by all appearances a perfectly ordinary convenience store /gas station just like every other gas station in Manteca. He's just asking for the same permit to sell liquor everyone else has and he is not the real problem at that corner.