Canton Red Light Camera Civil Code Vote Delay and Repository Editorials

The vote on Canton’s proposed civil code language has been delayed until March 23rd, as I’m sure you know from reading the Repository, or checking up on the issue on The Canton Red Light Cameras Blog.

This is so that the Mayor, William J. Healy II, can try to somehow muddle the issues and come up with some sort of compromise.   I’m sorry, but there is no compromise to be had.  Red light cameras are a true “black and white issue,” there are no shades of grey.  You are either for freedom from surveillance and “gotcha” enforcement of traffic laws, or you are for abusing and terrorizing the citizenry and motoring visitors that drive in your “fair” City.

Finally, I have some words about The Repository’s current coverage of the red light camera issue.  Initially, Bob Russ and Charita Goshay came out with opinion pieces that rightly called the city out on its greed.  But after they covered the informational meetings and got some good information out there (as well as some quotes from yours truly), their direction on the camera issues changed quite inexplicably.

I can’t say why they reversed their opposition of these systems, but maybe it was a simple case of “management” overriding the employees.  I don’t have any sort of inside line to The Repository, or their reporters, and I have considered calling them to ask, but don’t know that I would get a 100% open and honest answer on what would be perceived as “belligerent questioning.”

I am not accusing The Repository of any impropriety, but would like to engage in some wild speculation as to what may have gone on behind the scenes.

1.  Redflex sees the veritable poo-storm unleashed by residents’ vehement opposition to red light cameras, and decides ‘we have to do something or we’ll lose this contract.’

2.  So they contact The Repository, whose main editorial backed off the hard-line anti-camera sentiments of its opinion writers, and floated the idea “Let’s try these cameras for a year.”

3.  Then they receive a prepackaged article full of graphics and explainations of “how the system works” to run on the front page in Sunday, March 8th’s edition.  Much like how many news channels will receive pre-packaged news stories from marketers and even the government.

The article “Red or Green” was not posted on the website until Monday though, maybe an “honest oversight” or maybe deliberately held back so that many, many negative comments could not be added before the supposed Council vote on the issue that was to take place Monday night.

In the editorial on TTAC (the truth about cars.com), it was pointed out how Redflex and ACS executives have never received (or never paid) violations from their own sysem, but have violations from each other, and they detailed the story of one Michael Ferraresi, who:

has been through a revolving door with the Australian camera vendor and the Arizona Republic newspaper. After writing stories about the company for the Republic, Redflex hired Ferraresi to be spokesman– often speaking to his former colleagues at the paper about the company. Ferraresi is once again reporting for the Republic, a paper that offers enthusiastic editorial support for the use of speed cameras and red light cameras.

So one of my questions would have been, “Were there any offers from Redflex to a certain reporter who seems to be supporting these fraudulent ticketing systems for such an ‘ambassadorship’ job?  Or was The Repository paid or otherwise influence to come out in favor of the cameras?”

I’m not making these accusations seriously, I’m just playing “what if,”  but this exercise does raise some very valid points.  I don’t know why all three bodies, The Mayor, The City Council, and The Repository might betray the public’s trust by reccommending flawed, dangerous, and illegal systems such as these (uh yeah, finding people guilty without due process and ‘prosecuting’ people with a system of ‘guilt until proven innocent’ directly contravenes the U.S. Constitution, therefor, illegal, no matter what the apologists say).  Oh, I’m sorry, yes I can think of one reason for all these people who should be living up to their responsibility of respecting and defending the rights of the citizenry would commit to such a repugnant policy;  Money.

Time and time again, these cameras and their support systems have been found to violate the due process rights of the motorists caught by them, have been set with too short of an amber signal, have been caught not having any review by police officers, and increased accidents, etc.  The problems seem to be endless.  If the Canton City Council won’t send these frauds packing, then the people will stop the cameras through a petition or whatever other means necessary, and they will send those members of City Council that were blind and deaf to the wishes of their constituents, even if it means recalling them (which would be easy to do folowing the passage of any contract with Redflex, even if after re-election).
That’s all for now.  More, as it develops, my three loyal readers.

Tags: Betrayal, Canton Ohio, Canton Ohio City Council, Canton Ohio Red light cameras, Deception, Dirty Redflex, Fraud, OH, Ohio, Red, Red Light, Red Light Cameras, Redflex, redflex canton ohio, The Repository Canton Ohio, Thievery