|
RED LIGHT
CAMERAS
|
|
www.highwayrobbery.net
|
|
If you
haven't
already done so, please read the South San Franicsco section on the Camera
Towns
page City of South
San Francisco
Documents Some of South San Francisco's tickets can
possibly be
ignored.
If your "ticket" does not have the Superior Court's name and
address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more
details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page, and Set
# 2, below.
South San Francisco Docs
Set # 1 Total Events,
Total Citations Issued [4] New 5-22-10
This table made by highwayrobbery.net, using official reports provided by the City under the California Public Records Act. Official reports, Aug. 2009 - Apr. 2010 Official reports, May 2010 - Aug. 2010 [ ] indicates a footnote. [1] Totals are as provided by the City. [2] YTD = Year-to-date total. [3] Un-used columns are to allow for later expansion of City's system. [4] Any figures in red type (or, if you are looking at this table in black and white, the upper figure when there are two or more figures in a cell) are what ATS calls Total Events, or all incidents recorded by the cameras, and due to time limitations may have been posted here only for selected months or locations. If there is sufficient public interest, the remaining months will be posted. The figures in black type are what ATS calls Total Citations Issued, and represent the sum of genuine citations issued (those filed with the court) plus any Nominations mailed (not filed with the court, a.k.a. Snitch Tickets). [5] Monthly data has been requested. [6] The camera enforcement is believed to be on traffic on the first-named street, but the direction of enforcement (north, south, east, west, thru, left, right) is not yet available. [7] Includes enforcement of posted "no turn on red" signs. [8] All citations issued Aug. 2009 to Apr. 2010 were reversed or dismissed, and refunded. See the City's entry on the Camera Towns page for more details. South San Francisco Docs Set
# 2
South San Francisco Docs Set
# 3 After a Jul. 19, 2006 city council Study
Session (no public hearing), the
city signed its contract with
American Traffic Solutions, in Oct. 2006. It did not start
issuing
tickets until Aug. 2009, due to having to obtain
CalTrans permits before installing cameras at state-operated
intersections. On Nov. 10, 2009 the City approved an amendment intended
to remove the
contract's illegal "cost
neutrality" clause. (See
Subsection
B. of Defect # 10 for information about cost neutrality.) On Jan. 27, 2010, as a Consent Calendar
item, the city council
"re-approved" the 2006 contract, and possibly the 2009 amendment, too -
a copy of it was included in the staff report provided for the meeting. On Feb. 5, 2010 the City announced that it
would be
refunding/dismissing all tickets issued from the beginning of the
program up to Jan. 27, 2010, due to a "technical error" (the
City
had failed to hold the formal public hearing required by CVC 21455.6
when
it approved the contract in 2006 - see the
expanded version of Defect # 6). On Mar. 12, 2010 the City announced
that it would refund/dismiss even more tickets - those issued between
Jan. 27 and Mar. 10, 2010. A reason for the
second batch of refunds/dismissals was suggested in this Feb. 22 KGO-TV
story
(an attorney claimed that her post-Jan. 27 ticket
was invalid because the City should have issued warning tickets for the
first 30 days after the Jan. 27 "re-approval" of the contract). A estimate of the total number of tickets refunded/dismissed is 8000. On Apr. 14, 2010 the city council held the
public
hearing required by CVC 21455.6. The
announced purpose of the public hearing was to determine if the city
wished to
continue the camera program, or to cancel during the
one-year trial period provided in the contract: The staff
report
prepared for the Apr. 14 public hearing contained a strong
recommendation to
continue the program. Also heard during the hearing was
that ATS would not be refunding any
of the camera rent it had collected up to that time. The resolution approved on Apr. 14 said that
the City would issue warning tickets up to May 14. On Apr. 22 the San Mateo County Times
reported
that the City had agreed to pay $250,000 to the Superior Court, "for
its troubles involving the City's legal snafu over red-light
cameras."
For 8000 refunds/dismissals, that works out to
$31.25 per ticket. The settlement with the Court was formalized
in a
ten-page agreement.
Remaining Questions
South San Francisco Docs Set
# 4 A Jan. 10, 2012 MSNBC story
indicated that the City was losing money on the cameras.
South San Francisco Docs Set
# 5
--------------------------------- |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||