So it was about the money. (Albuquerque, Hope: relocate, work, health)

[_yb]

The red light cameras that is.

Marty and his spin meisters have been singing the tune of public safety since he started his illegal scamera system.
Turns out that was all a lie.
It's really all about the revenue.

He said the legal plate covers did not work at all. Less than a week later he had his police force out citing everyone that had a cover on their plate. Over 500 citations in a months time. The plates are NOT against the law in NM. The plates were working and that was putting a damper on his ability to steal revenue from the taxpayer.

The PRC did a study of accidents in intersections were the illegal cameras were placed. Marty and his spinners said accidents are down the illegal cameras are working like they are supposed to. Wrong.. Rear end accidents are up in mostly all of the intersections were the illegal cameras are placed.



Martyand his chronies have been caught red handed shortning the yellow light times in a move to gain even more revenue from the illegal cameras. This am the city was out in force trying to change all of the lights to 4 seconds. They were mostly in between 1.5 seconds to 3.5 seconds prior to this am. These shortened yellow lights have put everyones life in danger that has used those intersections. Hopefully no one has lost their life in these intersections so Marty could generate some revenue with the illegal cameras.

Remember their is NO due process with these illegal cameras. If you recieve a citation you are guilty. Marty really wants your money. Your money is much more important than public safety. Marty wipes his rear end with a copy of the constitution.

It's all about the money. I wonder how much Redflex has promised him when he tries to run for governor in a few years.

Be carefull in these intersections were he is trying to run his scam. If you do get an illegal citation from one of the revenue cameras call the Branch law firm and join the class action lawsuit against Marty and his city.

[Homewardbound66]

Originally Posted by _yb

He said the legal plate covers did not work at all. Less than a week later he had his police force out citing everyone that had a cover on their plate. Over 500 citations in a months time. The plates are NOT against the law in NM. The plates were working and that was putting a damper on his ability to steal revenue from the taxpayer.

YB- What is the legal plate covers all about? Sorry from out of this area and haven't heard this one. I heard about the rest on the news. Glad that's out. Thanks.

[_yb]

The plastic plate covers are not illegal according to the state traffic code because an officer can read them from 150 feet away. But from the angle of the camera they could blur the lense. If the lense is blured redflex cannot issue a citation. Redflex and Marty are unable to steal from the taxpayer when the plates are blurred.

Marty had a little hissy fit on the news with his asst. chief shultz they both said folks trying to keep there money in their pocket was wrong. So he had his police force start cracking down on the innocent taxpayers with the legal plate covers.
He even went so far as to name the cop with the most plate cover citations the officer of the month. Captain Bill Henz issued over 40 citations to win the award.
Nevermind the murders, gangbangers, drug pushers,drunken drivers etc. Lets go ahead and waste taxpayer money and stop folks for having a plastic plate cover that is not even against the law to have.

[Chaparral]

OK... I gotta ask: _yb, when did you get cited for your license plate cover?

And just for the record, I am no fan of Marty's red light cameras. I do like a lot of what he has accomplished in office, but the cameras can't be taken down soon enough.

Chap

[rotorhead]

I was just thinking....those cameras are NOT the property of the city of ABQ, they are owned and operated by a private company FOR the city.

What happens when one of them gets "accidentally" run over by a car, or more specifically...what happens if ALL of them get "accidentally" run over by someones old clunker that happens to have a very sturdy reinforced steel bumper? ;

They're not owned by the city, they're not being stolen from a private individual, they'd just be...ahem...slight relocated to the horizontal position.

I guess you might get cited for littering.

BTW, its ALWAYS been about the money. If it was about public safety, they'd call them a real traffic citation and share the fines with the state, which they don't. You might recall a big to-do over the issue at the last session of the legislature.

[EnjoyEP]

Yep, yb, I pretty much agree with you.

Chap - I know you are just kidding, but I do hate it when people that defend this program in the "name of safety" say...oh, if you are against the program (or the illegal activity of citing license plate covers) then you must have received a ticket, or you must have received multiple tickets, or you must be mad you cannot run red lights. That just totally is missing the point.

I have NEVER received one ticket from the cameras - speeding or red light - and to my knowledge, I have never blatantly run a red light (although I believe as fallible human beings most all of the general public has at one point or another entered a second too late on a yellow which really then was red).

However, I am more anti this program than just about anyone (although probably no one is more so than yb!). People miss the basic, underlying point...the broadening and bigger scope of government intervention and monitoring into their lives.

People think, "hey, running red lights is bad, dangerous, maybe I have almost gotten killed by a red light runner. I don't run red lights. So sure, I think the cameras are great."

But they don't realize that it isn't so much the cameras for the red lights, but it is the deeper-lying, precedence-setting government intervention in our lives.

Then, one by one, the little nitpicky items are instituted more and more - generally all in the name of "safety." Marty C. decides that he doesn't like smoking, so he on an "Executive Order" bans it in all public OUTDOOR spots as well as everywhere indoor. They decide that they think talking on a cell phone is creating hazardous driving (like that is somehow more hazardous than the millions of little other things negligent drivers can do like changing the radio / CDs, watching or listening to the televisions in some autos now, etc.) so they ban it. They think people need to be protected against themselves so they make seatbelt wearing law. And now that the box is opened...it just keeps going and going and going and going and going and going....personal privacy and liberties are lost, all in the name of "safety."

And the thing is, from a guy who hates ALL of this legislation:

a) I don't smoke and I hate smoking. Thus, I don't want to be around it. But yet, since it is a legal practice, I find it absurd that they ban it - even outdoors - in public places. (If you want to ban it, then make tobacco illegal...however, they'll never do that, because they want the tax dollars that come from tobacco).

b) I always wear my seatbelt, because I realize it is a matter of safety. But I should get to make that decision...some politician shouldn't.

c) I actually hate those that gab away on their cell phone when driving. But again, I also hate the billions of other bad habits I see on the road every day. So why single out cell phones and just add more beauracracy??

d) I think red light running is bad, dangerous, irresponsible, and potentially fatal. However, it is worth it to me to leave this up to responsibilty (which hopefully most folks have), the police, and God (to hopefully keep me safe from morons) and to keep government from watching my every move - whether just hoping to catch me in a 1-tenth of a second "mistake" by entering at the end of yellow too late or what have you - or by simply not having my privacy infringed upon and opening up more and more pandora's boxes for future "camera expansion".

Look, the government could REALLY make things safe. Have a 5 mile per hour maximum speed limit throughout the city. I bet accidents would go way down. Have a mandatory 5pm curfew - no one allowed out after dark (put 'em in jail if you catch them outside after 5pm) - I bet crime and assorted night time crimes would go down. Have certified nutritionists from the government monitor each and every meal you eat, and eat only what they allow...I bet health safety could really improve.

Of course these are absurd, extreme examples, but the point is this. Yes, life isn't SAFE. People that try to force life to be 100% safe will never be successful...so they will keep coming up with new, more, bigger beauracracy to try to ensure safety. And more and more, personal freedoms and liberties are snuffed out...all in the name of safety. And thus the decision is up to all of us - is that how we wish to live? More and more statistically "safe"...or...should we abide as well as possible by the common sense laws already on the book, live semi-defensively (when driving, walking at night, etc.) and be as responsible as possible. But live freely in the American way.

Some people value their safety almost at all costs over anything else. I am not one of those people. I would rather have an element of "risk" in my life at a reasonable level - which I believe common sense laws like reckless driving, drunk driving, etc., curb - if it means being able to live freer and without the government potentially holding my hand at every turn.

It is all of our decisions on how we want to live.

Marty had me in his last term for his pro-progress ABQ stances (even though I voted Winter I also thought Marty was good for the city), but since his recent re-election, all of these big government initiatives by Marty have ensured he'll never receive a vote from me again.

[_yb]

I have driven thousands of miles on Albuquerque streets safely without ever getting a citation. I do not have any type of plate cover nor do I plan on getting one anytime soon.

[6 FOOT 3]

Thank god for Jim Villanucci Show on 770 KKOB for exposing this Bafoon ( mayor marty) for what he and this program is all about. If only Councilman Brad Winter would've won the Mayor's race !! Maybe Jim V will run against mayor Bafoon next time.........

[mortimer]

EnjoyEP wrote:

EP> b) I always wear my seatbelt, because I realize it is a matter
EP> of safety. But I should get to make that decision...
EP> some politician shouldn't.

Call me a facist, but as far as I'm concerned, people that want
to *not* wear seatbelts, put their kids on their laps in the front
seat and/or let them ride in the back of a pickup truck should be
allowed to do so.
Some call that "thinning out the herd"

Allowing a dog in the back of a pickup ... that's another matter.

[rotorhead]

Do you think a chainsaw would go right through the aluminum posts that hold up those privately-owned-non-city-property cameras?

Just wondering.