City of Aurora and RedFlex's claim about"no cost to taxpayers" is a million dollar hoax
and another lie by the Weisner administration
The City of Aurora's Finance Committee didn't review the contract and terms before approving the controversial red-light camera proposal TWICE to raise revenue, increase public safety risk, injuries and accidents...but Alderman Leroy Keith called it "good stuff."
While we have uncovered serious public safety risks and communities that have terminated red-light camera programs, the City of Aurora's main claim is there's "NO COST TO TAXPAYERS."
With the deception epidemic and integrity crisis of the Weisner adminstration, we've applied a rule toward anything they say. Assume it's a lie unless proven otherwise.
They claimed no cost to taxpayers. Sure...
...Now, here's the truth:
Each of the 20 intersections will cost taxpayers $4,395 per month, plus a $4.80 fee to process each $90 violation.
$4,395 x 20 intersections x 12 months
= $1,054,800.00 per year
No taxpayer cost?
That's a MILLION DOLLAR PER YEAR LIE.
That's with ZERO violations issued with another $4.80 to the vendor per violation. The company is not doing this for free. Taxpayers will pay for the honor of having their legal rights trampled upon and risks for increased injuries and death.
Seems to us the failure to fully disclose the MILLION DOLLAR cost is a "material" omission by the Weisner administration and "material" act of incompetence by the finance committee, including by Leroy "this is good stuff" Keith.
The city argues this million dollars will be recouped through violations issued to taxpayers through non-moving violations (targeting the owner, not the driver), which will means to break-even, there will be THOUSANDS of violations issued for a problem the city hasn't proved even exists. The vendors makes more than a million dollars no matter what...at TAXPAYER EXPENSE.
Let's be clear. This red-light camera scheme is about government exploiting a way to make money from its taxpayers and private contractors gaining profit from it. This is NOT about improving public safety.
In addition, OpenlineBlog.com has learned the vendor, RedFlex, is involved with various litigation across the nation. There are class-action lawsuits and other court cases for red-light cameras. Courts across the nation are ruling against the practice, including a 2007 unanimous decision against the scam by the Minnesota Supreme Court.
The City of Aurora should expect multiple lawsuits if it implements the red-light cameras, ranging from a class-action lawsuit to a legal challenge on the law to liability for injuries and death. Given the incompetence of the city's so-called corporation counsel, is the city prepared for the onslaught of legitimate claims that will follow?
We urge the Aurora City Council to emphatically reject the dollars being dangled, not to fall for the million dollar hoax and not risk the lives and safety of the people of Aurora.
MSNBC on Red-Light Cameras | 3:32
It's All About Money | 3:44
>Reserve your spot to speak-up at tonight's city council meeting (this is an agenda item so they cannot limit discussion) by calling 630-844-3615 and don't let the Weisner administration get away with another scam. You can speak on agenda items and also speak during the public comment period on non-agenda items.
While we have uncovered serious public safety risks and communities that have terminated red-light camera programs, the City of Aurora's main claim is there's "NO COST TO TAXPAYERS."
With the deception epidemic and integrity crisis of the Weisner adminstration, we've applied a rule toward anything they say. Assume it's a lie unless proven otherwise.
They claimed no cost to taxpayers. Sure...
...Now, here's the truth:
Each of the 20 intersections will cost taxpayers $4,395 per month, plus a $4.80 fee to process each $90 violation.
$4,395 x 20 intersections x 12 months
= $1,054,800.00 per year
No taxpayer cost?
That's a MILLION DOLLAR PER YEAR LIE.
That's with ZERO violations issued with another $4.80 to the vendor per violation. The company is not doing this for free. Taxpayers will pay for the honor of having their legal rights trampled upon and risks for increased injuries and death.
Seems to us the failure to fully disclose the MILLION DOLLAR cost is a "material" omission by the Weisner administration and "material" act of incompetence by the finance committee, including by Leroy "this is good stuff" Keith.
The city argues this million dollars will be recouped through violations issued to taxpayers through non-moving violations (targeting the owner, not the driver), which will means to break-even, there will be THOUSANDS of violations issued for a problem the city hasn't proved even exists. The vendors makes more than a million dollars no matter what...at TAXPAYER EXPENSE.
Let's be clear. This red-light camera scheme is about government exploiting a way to make money from its taxpayers and private contractors gaining profit from it. This is NOT about improving public safety.
In addition, OpenlineBlog.com has learned the vendor, RedFlex, is involved with various litigation across the nation. There are class-action lawsuits and other court cases for red-light cameras. Courts across the nation are ruling against the practice, including a 2007 unanimous decision against the scam by the Minnesota Supreme Court.
The City of Aurora should expect multiple lawsuits if it implements the red-light cameras, ranging from a class-action lawsuit to a legal challenge on the law to liability for injuries and death. Given the incompetence of the city's so-called corporation counsel, is the city prepared for the onslaught of legitimate claims that will follow?
We urge the Aurora City Council to emphatically reject the dollars being dangled, not to fall for the million dollar hoax and not risk the lives and safety of the people of Aurora.
MSNBC on Red-Light Cameras | 3:32
It's All About Money | 3:44
>Reserve your spot to speak-up at tonight's city council meeting (this is an agenda item so they cannot limit discussion) by calling 630-844-3615 and don't let the Weisner administration get away with another scam. You can speak on agenda items and also speak during the public comment period on non-agenda items.
23 comments:
so much for the 'no cost' claim.
I hope this red-light proposal is rejected.
There's no due process for these violations. It's going to get struck down by the courts. You can't have moving AND non-moving violations for the same thing.
City lied about no cost to taxpayers?
What? The Weisner admin left that out?
No way, not our mayor of integrity!
Aurora is great at creating problems that don't exist.
Million bucks for the vendor from taxpayers doesn't sound like "no cost" to me.
Maybe if that finance committee was paying attention, this would have been clear from the start.
this is an initiative Richard Irvin proposed in his campaign...
Red light cameras were authorized by state legislation adopted several years ago. Aurora is behind the times as a number of Illinois communities have already installed the cameras.
Traffic enforcement at traffic lights is essential. I don't know if I can count the number of times I have slowed to stop for a yellow light changing to red on a four lane road, only to have a vehicle fly through the red light in the lane next to me. It has reached the point that drives need to hesitate when the light turns green to be sure that someone isn't trying to beat the red light on the cross street.
This plan allows Aurora to increase traffic light enforcement without adding to the burden of the police department.
The Toll Road has been effectively using cameras to catch toll road cheats.
Yes, the contractor who provides and maintaines the cameras is paid from the revenue generated by the tickets. The cost is by the persons caught running the red lights, not the taxpayers. This is no different than the system used by other communities that have installed the cameras.
This is a public safety issue -- Aurora officials should be moving forward with the red light cameras.
Openline for God. Will you please run and accept?
I love liars.
Here's a good rule - if Openline says it, they probably got it wrong.
There is a cost neutrality clause in the contract, if you read it. What this means is that if Redflex doesn't catch the number of red light violators it needs to make its money back - which is about 50 per month per intersection - then Redflex will EAT THE COST. This is incentive for them to catch as many violators as they can, and the company is gambling that they will catch more than 50 per intersection per month.
The city will NOT be charged $4300 a month. The city will make money if Redflex brings in more than $4300 per month at one of the cameras, but taxpayers WILL NOT have to pay if they don't.
If Leroy says anything is good stuff we all should be against it.
This is guy is the biggest moron.
BIG BROTHER LEROY!
He loves monitoring people, their internet, their mail. Leroy is the biggest loser, he thinks he is a secret agent or something. Anything this guys wants is bad. It means less freedom for you and more potential losers like Leroy will be watching you and obsessing because they have NO LIFE!
Isnt he buddies with that so called methodist priest women who believes that killing babies is ok, but smoking, drinking and gambling is a sin? It must be a freaky world he lives in.
This defies common sense. How can it possibly cost $4,400 a month to maintain a camera? Where did you get that figure?
"It has reached the point that drives need to hesitate when the light turns green to be sure that someone isn't trying to beat the red light on the cross street."
You're supposed to do that anyway... Check your IL rules of the road book, you know, the one that they use in DRIVER'S ED! Green does not mean go. Green means "check to see that the intersection is clear of pedestrians and vehicles, then slowly accelerate into the intersection."
As far as the contract details, I think Openline's sources are correct. As I have stated previously, IIT ran up several hundred thousand dollars in bills for their 3 lights over a 2 month period. There are plenty of hidden costs on top of the monthly fees and skimming off the top on the traffic fines.
Hey, Geneva just passed the redlight deal with a 5-4 vote . Check out the beacon on line.
Why is it only Aurora has hoaxes?
Does Openline have a prejudice? lmao (laughing my ass off). This site is a republican hatchett job. Kinda funny.
I still think my brother is the biggest moron in the world. Maybe him and Leroy can arm wrestle for the title!
This is the same Council that approved how many TENS of MILLIONS of dollar for "free wi-fi." Of course they are going to pass this! Steffy and Ricky don't really care about the people- just their votes and campaign money! The only reason they oppose Weisner is because he puts a crimp in their own power plays. He's alienating their IDENTICAL liberal leftist voters.
Republican hatchet job? Except for the coverage of PP Openline is simply a cheerleader for libs Steff and Rick.
Quality, though, sure has declined since the "car accident" hasn't it, Openline?
There is only "cost neutrality" if taxpayers are hit with enough violation.
TAXPAYERS ARE ON THE HOOK FOR A MILLION DOLLARS NO MATTER WHAT.
That's the reality and the Weisner administration are a bunch of misleading and deceptive thugs.
3:24
What are the details on this car accident? Seems some whiplash, concussion and brain confusion is one result.
10/23/07 3:24 PM Glad to see Chris Buy My Crap is blogging in again. Thanks for the great laugh! Drink some more kool-aid with your buddies Weisner and Keith and pretty soon there'd be anarchy.
Aurora should install cameras at all crosswalks and use it to bust people who jay-walk. Think of the financial revenue that would generate.
And if they can't pay, impound their shoes.
Hello.. Cost neutrality says if there are not enough violators, the city does not have to pay one dime. You will find that it will more than likely save a loved one you know from some jerk running a red light. Don't break the law and you will be fine! BTW, it does not cost $4,000 + to maintain cameras at an intersection but it can cost $40,000 + to install cameras at an intersection, you do the math..
Post a Comment