Re: transparancy / traffic cameras

From: Michael S. Lorrey (
Date: Sun May 21 2000 - 13:45:29 MDT

Spike Jones wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > 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 goes on all the time. Even up here, the city of Lebanon was paying
severance settlements to THREE school superintendents at the same time
that the school board had dismissed before their contracts were up. What
we need are laws that state that such screwups should be the personal
liability of the politicians who commit the fuckups.

> > 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

As well as technology to get around it....which I'm sure the top dogs
will want in order to sheild themselves from the law, Again.

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