Re: transparancy / traffic cameras

From: Spike Jones (
Date: Sun May 21 2000 - 13:10:07 MDT

> >
> > example of a camera being set up and eventually resulting in a
> relaxation of a law that suddenly became much easier to prosecute...
> wrote: Right, as far as it goes...
> but there are "no plans to reimburse the legions of motorists" who (some
> 20,000 of them) had already paid the $75 fine....

Ja that does bring up an interesting point. If we have more enforcement
for profit such as this, then there is no possibility of returning the money
if the law is struck down, for there is no contractual agreement between
Lockheed and the local government for reimbursement. If the city did
decide to reimburse the fined drivers, the city would need to make up
the difference that has already been paid to Lockheed, so in that case
the innocent taxpayer picks up the bill for a silly law. We need *many*
more examples of where innocent taxpayers are holding the bag for
misguided legislation. Then, perhaps there would be hell to pay for
such goings on in city hall. Eh?

> It's down to the "Who is watching the watchers?" ... again.

We do, BM, we must. Now more than ever. Now more
diligently than ever. For a price, Im sure Lockheed can arrange a
contract to develop watcher watching technology. spike

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:28 MDT