Some of Gardena's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Superior Court's name and address on it, it is what some people call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.
On Oct. 6, 2004 RedFlex announced that Gardena had awarded it a contract for up to ten cameras, for a fixed fee of $6070 per camera per month ( = up to $728,400 per year ), for a term of five to nine years.The contract, signed Sept. 28, 2004, includes a "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost. (Other cities with similar clauses are Capitola, Davis, Laguna Woods, Loma Linda, Los Alamitos, Marysville, Modesto, Murrieta, Paramount, Rocklin, San Leandro, San Mateo, and Union City. See Defect # 10.)
http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsdocsGardenaMain.html to view past intersection ticketing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This work is licensed under a
1 comment:
This is an update on the 2007 GardenaWatch article (6-11-07) that mentioned cost neutral contracts. For years I've been shouting that the so-called "cost-neutral" contracts many California cities* have with their red light camera providers are illegal. Finally there's some official confirmation: On Thursday Dec. 11, I received a copy of a defendant's Nov. 21, 2008 appellate win. It is the first appellate win (that I am aware of) anywhere in CA on the issue of cost-neutral contracts. Even though the decision is binding precendent only in Orange County, it could still have persuasive power with judges in other California counties, as well as encouraging defendants in those other counties to fight their tickets. A copy of the decision, and an article about it, is here: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsLawAppealsFranco.html
Another article is here: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/court-red-city-2255280-contract-camera My website's main section about cost-neutral contracts is Defect # 10 - B on the Home page, link: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/indexExpanded.htm#Def10
If you are doing a piece about cameras, please include another discussion of Snitch Tickets (or a repeat of what you had in June 070 - fake red light camera tickets sent out by the police in an effort to bluff the registered owner into identifying the actual driver of the car. Snitch Tickets have not been filed with the court, so they don't say "Notice to Appear," don't have the court's address and phone # on them, and on the back (in small letters) they say, "Do not contact the court about this notice." You can ignore a Snitch Ticket. But usually the bluff works - after all, most people trust their local police and expect them to provide protection from con games, not perpetrate them. Read about Snitch Tickets at: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsticket.htm#Fakes
Finally, since the new legislative year is just a week away, watch for the inevitable photo radar bill (to allow automated speeding tickets) in Sacramento. The three tries so far (2005, 2006, 2008) failed, but they still need the $1 billion the tickets would bring. You can read about the previous bills at: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsjoin.htm#Action5
Regards,
Editor, highwayrobbery.net
Post a Comment