Brewer To Review Photo Enforcement


BREAKING NEWS: Expected incoming Governor Jan Brewer is to take a “fresh look” at the state’s photo enforcement program, KTAR is reporting.

Brewer also commented that nothing is “off the table” in terms of options for the state and the budget deficit being faced, including raising revenues elsewhere.

Developing…

24 Responses to Brewer To Review Photo Enforcement

  1. azmojo says:

    Come on Jan, don’t let us down. Put a stop to this tyranny.

  2. David Klopp says:

    Great Jan. I want people to obey speed limits, but there is an accepted driving practice in this country called “traveling with the speed of traffic in a prudent and safe fashion for that roadway”. We all know that some speed limits are posted too slow.

    My main concern is bailing out the State’s spending spree (light rail, all day ‘babysitting’ kindergarden, etc) on the backs of drivers. Let’s hire more police and add more patrols to catch speeders. Then the backside costs of serving the ticket and then finding the violator if they can’t be served all go wawy cause the cop serves them.

    Let’s send Jano’s practices away with her. Maybe she’ll put more camera’s on the border . . . yeh, right!

  3. Joe says:

    People think photo radar is about revenue genration. It’s actually worse than that. It’s cronyism and suckerism. People at the state level were duped and conned into giving a private vendor a license to print money. The state gets cut-in on the proceeds, but considering the vast scope of the enterprise, this does more to line the pockets of political friends of the governor.

    Once enacted, the vendor is free to (without any real auditing) tweak things more to their favor.

  4. j says:

    Jan Brewers transition team is loaded with Redflex Lobbyists.. what makes u think she is gonna change anything?

    http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/272666

  5. PR says:

    I think a word of caution needs to be placed here. I think regardless of what Jan Brewer does, our initiative still needs to be voted on by the people of Arizona, and here’s why. If she suspends it through some power of the governor it can come back to haunt us at a later date. Shutting them down temporarily so that better legal support can be created via AZ statute changes could be a very smart short term tactic to make it harder to remove them later. It also lures the public into a false sense of security and takes momentum out of our initiative. I say no matter what the governor’s office does we can NOT let up, Arizona needs this initiative. Just my 2c.😉

  6. j says:

    Should tell Jan how you feel here:

    http://www.brewertransition.org/yourvisionofaz.asp

    Ask how she employs an ex Redflex sales exec, and then expects to be taken seriously when she plays lip service to the idea of “investigating” photo radar. It’s a Dog and pony show for the public.

  7. Don't Tread On Me says:

    This says/shows it all.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8470285655709172420

    I posted this in the pictures demonstration area, but can’t let it not be seen by all.

  8. Bill Conley says:

    If nothing is off the table, then here’s an idea…spend less!

  9. Helldigger says:

    I sent Jan a note.

    The thing is, The State of Arizona has a contract with Redflex that doesn’t expire for 2 years and is then auto renewable.

    Jan might want the cameras to come down but it really is out of her hands.

    She can review it, but unless they want to caugh up big bucks to go breach on the contract, nothing will happen.

    The referendum, if it ever goes to ballot, will also take years.

    The way is clear, continue to swell the ranks of demonstrators and gain activists that will stand up with civil disobedience.

    Escalate the pressure on the state, challenge every ticket in court, make the state send out servers on every ticket and bring the media into the fold.

    This fight will be long and hard.

    Don’t give up.

  10. Ross from Redflex says:

    Let me tell all you blokes this, Jan II is just as keen on photo radar as the original, she just hides it better. You camerafraudsters think you’re so clever but you’re not.

    Meanwhile some of you “Santas” were delivering present to all your tent city girls and boys:

    http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/132948

    Nice try mates, we have so many cameras now that when you cover a couple with silly boxes or wrapping paper, the other ones just get “cranked up.”

    I’ve spent some time with the lovely Miss Brewer and let me tell you, she loves a pint of Fosters with her vegemite sandwiches!!

    TOOLS!!!!!

  11. Helldigger says:

    Ho HO ho,

    Thanks Santa, you made my day.

    I hope your legion of elvs continue this practice.

  12. jgunn says:

    Ross: Nice find! Comments from the article perplex me. Not a crime? The cameras were clearly disabled. WTF? Can we go decorate these cameras ourselves?

    “The equipment was not damaged and there “doesn’t appear to be any crime,” said Katie McDevitt, a spokeswoman for the Tempe Police Department.

    She said the department knew of the incident about two weeks ago and uncovered the cameras. Police have no suspects and are not pursuing an investigation.”

  13. azmojo says:

    You heard the woman, it is NOT a crime to cover up a camera. Get to it camerafraudsters! We have a lot of cameras to wrap up.

  14. Mark says:

    Great, now we got flipping aussies telling us what to do!

    What’s next rebirth of the Nazi era?

    I can understand safetey and I can put up with red-light cameras. That’s fine but those freaking speed cameras are slowing everyone down. Now I get stuck behind this idiot “fire inspector” going 55 on I-10 (with a speed limit of 65) because he’s afraid of the stupid cameras.

    I say since they have a contract, let the cameras stay and have the police department reject all the tickets. After all, it is up to the police department to accept or reject the violation. This way Redflex looses money on the operation. How long could they keep those cameras up without any revenue?

  15. No One says:

    All Governor Brewer needs to do, if she really wants to get rid of the cameras, is to quietly let it be known that non-destructive… “modification” of the cameras (IE post it notes, silly string, etc) would not be actively prosecuted.

    Remember, the contract posted on the 5th gives the state the option to cancel the contract if the numbers of “actionable offenses” fall below 85% of the total transactions….and it specifically includes “acts of vandalism” as something which is Redflex’s responsibility.

    It would have to be non-destructive though, because the cameras must be otherwise operational in order to count toward the total.

    Once the new Governor made that known, I’m quite a few civic-minded citizens could make short work of the problem! It wouldn’t take many.

  16. Glyph says:

    PR makes a good point. I’d hate to see the cameras come down for a few months or a year only to see them come back on better legal footing.

  17. azmojo says:

    Does anyone have any information on the early 90’s when Peoria voted and banned photo enforcement? I’ve been trying to find more information on this. Peoria uses red light cameras, so maybe the vote was just for speed?

  18. Sick of Government says:

    The third to last paragraph mentions it.. Not much though..

    http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/08/801.asp

  19. RC says:

    Just wondering were the article about Jan Brewer taking a”fresh look” at the cameras was at.

    I saw the article on KTAR about “nothing is “off the table” in terms of options for the state and the budget deficit being faced”, but nowhere in that article did I see anything about photo radar.

  20. DG says:

    While this sounds like a promising development, keep in mind the mentality of politicians. They say things like “including raising revenues elsewhere” when they should be saying stuff like “reducing wasteful spending,” which I sadly did not see Jan say. Folks, let’s make our State Government more responsible for wasting our money, not give them a blank check, which encourages their irresponsibility.

  21. James M. says:

    Let’s see: Get rid of the cameras. I like that idea. So, we have to have revenue. Raise fuels taxes. Great idea. I just love paying $4.00/gallon for milk, $1.99 for a head of lettuce, and about $25/person for a night out on the town. My idea to get rid of the cameras, raise gasoline/diesel prices to a permenant $4.00/gallon and adjust UPWARDS whenever we fall short of revenue. You like this idea? I didn’t think so. But when gas prices were at this level, we all slowed down, didn’t we? You betcha. BTW, when we were complaining about $4/gallon the folks in Europe we laughing in their beer/wine because they’ve been paying this since the 80s and in London gasoline is at over $9/gallon even with the ‘good’ exchange rates.

  22. James M. says:

    DG: Surely you gest. I would LOVE to see any level of government stop spending like it was drunk. You and I will NEVER see this. Take a look at the over $100 Million dollars spend on the efforts to renovate downtown Tucson and the over 1 BILLION dollars to put in light rail in Phoenix as a good example. BTW, both were ‘paid’ for with taxpayer dollars in the FUTURE (it’s called a bond and boy are we going to be slaves when the bill comes due.) See, there is a way to lower taxes today, but it is going to COST in the future. So, what does cameras have to do with this? Ask the legistature why they passed the ‘clean plate’ bill that will come with a minimum of a $95 fine for covering the Arizona on your plate that starts on Thursday. BTW, if the officer cannot read it, you get the ticket, so this means removing those covers too! All in the interest of “public safety’, read, if we cannot id the plate we cannot issue the ticket and that has stopped about 50% of them from being issued so far! Look for more ‘reasons’ to have your plate nice and clean so the officer can read it in the near future!

  23. photoradarscam says:

    James, raising revenue at the expense of safety and in a discriminatory, unconstitutional manner is not the right answer.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: