September 22, 2005
The money in "question" is money that was actually illegally taken from the citizens -- and not just citizens of that city or school board area. It was money taken from citizens without allowing the citizens to face their accuser or even question the fine (red light cameras). But now the school board wants MORE of that money that the city has already collected.
Of course, if you've followed red light camera cases across the country, their primary purpose and indeed the primary results of the cameras is to raise money -- they have nothing to do with safety as report after report will show.
However, in this area, the school district wants 90% of the money collected from the "violations." If the city gives the school board 90% of the money, then it will actually COST the city money to run the cameras.
Now, if the cameras were about safety, surely the city would pay a little bit to keep their citizens safe, wouldn't they? Quite obviously, the city is continuing to fight this ruling, because the cameras are NOT about safety -- the city wants them there to earn cash for the city. If the city cannot earn money from them, they won't be there.
Posted by: Ogre at
04:02 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Jay at September 22, 2005 07:08 AM (xmvb0)
Posted by: Ogre at September 22, 2005 08:34 AM (/k+l4)
Posted by: birdwoman at September 23, 2005 07:01 PM (Sc2Wh)
Posted by: Ogre at September 23, 2005 08:12 PM (iJFc9)
88 queries taking 0.1239 seconds, 193 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.