Local Politics

Chesapeake’s New Red Light Camera

Aug 23rd

Posted by 757HR in Crime

1 comment

As Chesapeake begins its quest to join Virginia Beach as a photo-enforced city, I once again must question the need for red light cameras. Before I go further, let me say that I do not believe in their effectiveness. I think that increase the number of rear-end accidents at each intersection and I do believe that each jurisdiction uses them for a source of revenue and not to actually protect the public. You can’t really argue too much with the part about accidents increasing. VDOT’s own study in 2007 (The Impact of Red Light Cameras [Photo-Red Enforcement] on Crashes in Virginia) indicated that accidents increased at many Virginia intersections with red light cameras. True, they did reduce accidents at some, but the effectiveness is relatively unpredictable. The reason that I think that cameras are use for revenue rather than for safety: If it was truly about safety and the public was in danger, Police Departments would divert resources from other areas to fight the epidemic of red light running. A police-issued summons would add points to a driver’s license, a hefty fine and/or community service, and increased insurance costs for that individual. The impact of a camera-issued summons? $50. That is of course, if you choose to pay it. Thats the best part. By law in Virginia, you do not have to pay your ticket just because a ticket came in the mail. I discovered this recently in a Virginia Motorists Association article from 2009. Their article was commenting on an editorial at the time in the Washington Post. Basically, they cited two Virginia laws. The first, § 15.2-968.1, specifies how to send the summons. It says,

G. A summons for a violation of this section may be executed pursuant to § 19.2-76.2. Notwithstanding the provisions of § 19.2-76, a summons for a violation of this section may be executed by mailing by first class mail a copy thereof to the owner, lessee, or renter of the vehicle. In the case of a vehicle owner, the copy shall be mailed to the address contained in the records of the Department of Motor Vehicles; in the case of a vehicle lessee or renter, the copy shall be mailed to the address contained in the records of the lessor or renter. Every such mailing shall include, in addition to the summons, a notice of (i) the summoned person’s ability to rebut the presumption that he was the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation through the filing of an affidavit as provided in subsection D and (ii) instructions for filing such affidavit, including the address to which the affidavit is to be sent. If the summoned person fails to appear on the date of return set out in the summons mailed pursuant to this section, the summons shall be executed in the manner set out in § 19.2-76.3. No proceedings for contempt or arrest of a person summoned by mailing shall be instituted for failure to appear on the return date of the summons. Any summons executed for a violation of this section shall provide to the person summoned at least 30 business days from the mailing of the summons to inspect information collected by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system in connection with the violation.

In other words, the city can send you a violation notice if you run a red light. It will be address to the registered owner. You can use the information contained on the violation to file an affidavit affirming that you were not the driver at the time of the violation. If you fail to pay or appear in court, the city must them serve a second summons. The next law tell the city how that summons must be served. § 19.2-76.3 says,

A. If any person fails to appear on the date of the return contained in the summons issued in accordance with § 19.2-76.2, then a summons shall be delivered to the sheriff of the county, city or town for service on that person as set out in § 8.01-296.
B. If such person then fails to appear on the date of return as contained in the summons so issued, a summons shall be executed in the manner set out in § 19.2-76. C. No proceedings for contempt or arrest of any person summoned under the provisions of this section shall be instituted unless such person has been personally served with a summons and has failed to appear on the return date contained therein.

That means that they have to physically serve you with a summons before you can be  fined for running the red light or for failing to appear. So what should you do if you disagree with the use of traffic cameras and you happen to run that red light? Forget about the violation. Chances are they wont serve you with anything. That costs a lot of money and cuts into the potential profits. If they do, its no big deal, just go pay the ticket.

Note: Running red lights is dangerous and you should never run a red light just in spite of it. Please, for the sake of everyone else, this is only for those times that you, say, don’t want to be rear-ended by the moron tailgating you three inches from your back bumper. Also, I have presented the text of the law for you to interpret and use as you see fit. While I have pointed out that the law requires the hand-serving of a second summons, my opinion does not constitute legal advice. If you want that, talk to a lawyer. Or, just don’t run red lights. If you do, it is your responsibility to know the law and to make appropriate decisions.

, ,

HRT: Increase Fare or Efficiency

Aug 16th

Posted by 757HR in Bus Transportation

2 comments

I, more than anyone, want HRT to be as efficient as possible. However, when I read the news that HRT’s temporary President and CEO, Philip Schucet, wanted to postpone raising the fare so that he could hire a consultant to look for savings, I was concerned. A consultant will probably cost HRT between $100,000 and $250,000. Basically, their job will be to collect loose change at HRT to pay their own consultant fee. Additionally, the VP states:

The consultant will consider a range of adjustments, including increasing bus frequencies on popular routes to encourage more ridership and reducing frequencies on less popular routes to save money.

HRT doesn’t need a consultant for this. Any frequent rider would tell you that if you increased frequency, ridership would increase. Lengthening the operating hours would do that as well. Regarding saving money by cutting low-performing routes, HRT cannot enact these changes. Each city would have to cut its own service. Route 18 in Norfolk has terrible ridership. HRT is aware. The City is aware. Unfortunately, the City of Norfolk will not kill the route for fear that the few riders that do utilize it will revolt.

Attention HRT: I will give you advice for free. Increase frequency at peak hours of high-ridership routes such as the #2, #3, #20, etc. On low performing routes such as the #18, modify the route to go places that people actually would want to go. For example, the #18 could continue down Cromwell, make a right on Tidewater, a right on Norview, and continue to the Airport. The southern end of the route would loop  and end in Grandy Village and Chesterfield Heights. This way the route would work as a feeder to light rail and serve Norfolk International Airport, with appears to be the only major airport without transit service. Ridership would also increase due to service to a number of apartment/condo communities and to multiple shopping centers. Routes like the new #14 could increase ridership by lengthening the route to accommodate development that has occurred since the route was originally developed. In order to fund expanded service, however, HRT will need more money. That money will probably not come from the cities, the state, or the federal government. They don’t have any extra money. That leaves a fare increase.

According to the VP, only 20% of HRT’s budget is covered by the current fare as opposed to the 40% covered at comparable transit agencies. That means HRT needs to raise over $14 million in fares to reach 40%.  HRT is diverting federal maintenance money toward operations. If this is continued, HRT’s infrastructure (buildings, buses, etc.) will deteriorate. There is no way a consultant will find $14 million in savings. I am not saying that a fare increase would solve all of HRT’s problems, but it would be a start. Unfortunately, a fare increase takes time to get approval. I am afraid that by the time this consultant is finished, the time will have passed where a 50 cent increase will no longer cover an expansion in services.

I think HRT should move forward with the fare increase immediately. I think that the HRT staff really do know what they are doing. If each member city would actually consider some of HRT’s suggestions, HRT could make positive changes without paying a consultant to suggest old ideas.

, ,

Election Thoughts

Apr 22nd

Posted by 757HR in Local Politics

No comments

I think that there should be a law requiring all incumbents to use only accomplishments acquired in the previous term on election-related materials. Additionally, they should only be allowed to use accomplishments that they actually pushed for. In recent weeks, I have noticed that most of the incumbents (not just in Norfolk) seem to use accomplishments that were completed long before the start of the current term. Better yet, some listed few, if any accomplishments, or listed accomplishments that had not yet been actually accomplished. It is tactics like this that deceive voters. It is also tactics like these that make voters vote for new people. Personally, I hope that nobody votes for an incumbent that has been in office for longer than two terms. Take Ms. Hester for example. Not to pick on her, but she has been in office for nearly 14 years. Despite this long running term, she is running on the idea that council has “lost its purpose.” While I definitely do not disagree, I feel the need to point out that when anyone is a member of an organization for 14 years, they become part of that organization. Council has not run off track in the last month or even year. Council has been off track for years. As a whole, Council has spent the past umpteen years pandering to developers while ignoring the needs of the residents of this city. Granted, the new development has not all been bad. Large projects such as Broad Creek and East Beach have been fairly successful. Unfortunately, the in-fill housing practices have not exactly been in the best interest of out neighborhoods. The houses that have been built are usually hideous when compared to the surrounding neighborhoods. My neighborhood is made up mostly of bungalows or other small houses. Most have porches. Few have attached garages. That said, when you build a new house that is noticeably larger than the surrounding houses with no porch and a large, ugly garage taking up half of the front of the house, visitors cringe. Technically, the surrounding property values have gone up due to this new construction. Personally, it makes the surrounding houses worthless to me.

Council’s typical reaction to opposition to an agenda item is to either listen and then vote for it anyway or defer it to a later date in hopes that the opposition can not make that meeting. If opposition continues, it seems to be getting more and more frequent that they have to take out petitions and costly lawsuits to have their voices heard. The City of Norfolk should not be spending money to defend itself against its residents. We need to create comprehensive plans with input from the residents of the city. Then the city needs to actually stick to the plans. These past failings can be attributed to our city leadership. We need new leaders. The current leadership has served its time. If they want to run again after a term of someone else, more power to them. All organizations need a change after awhile.

Anti-Burfoot Website

Apr 22nd

Posted by 757HR in Local Politics

No comments

I was actually going to post about this site yesterday, but did not get a chance. I woke up this morning to read that Councilman Burfoot used the city attorney to sue in court for an order to remove the site. Burfoot claimed that the site was defamatory and that he wanted to sue the author(s) for slander. First, as a public official, Burfoot should know that he would have to sue for libel, not slander. Second, he should know that as a public official and as the plaintiff in a libel case, the burden of proof would be on him to prove four things (generally).

  1. Publication – The plaintiff must prove that the alleged defamatory remarks were published
  2. Identification – The plaintiff must prove that he/she was reasonably identified in the remarks
  3. Harm – The plaintiff must prove that the remarks are harmful to his/her reputation
  4. Fault – The plaintiff must prove that the defendant is at fault

Councilman Burfoot can easily prove the first three. Without an admission of guilt, however, it may be difficult, if not impossible, to prove a particular person published something online. Additionally, according to the Supreme Court Case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, because he is a public official, he has to prove “actual malice.” In other words, on top of the main four things that he must prove, he also has to prove that the author published information that he knew was false. Good luck with that. All it takes is for the author to claim that he thought it was true and Mr. Burfoot’s case is dismissed.

Back to the actual website. It has been taken down. If you Google “may4thcounts” you can still get most of it through Google’s cached site. Unfortunately for anyone who wants to fact-check, the cached site does not include the images or the supporting documents.  At first glance, however, I don’t see how Mr. Burfoot could sue for anything. The site had news articles,photos, and public documents to support most of his allegations. A couple of things were suspect such as where he claimed that Burfoot had pushed for the MacArthur Center policy or that it has had a negative effect on the mall. Have you been to the mall lately? It seems to have more customers than ever.

Whoever the author of this site is, they appear to have connections somewhere. My guess is that they work for the city somewhere or have a relative who works for the city.  While I hope that they remain anonymous, since the Norfolk City Council would like to ban free speech in its entirety, I also hope that the author will post his website again to a different server. Better yet, I hope he would post a zipped file version of his entire site plus content to an online file sharing site such as http://www.2shared.com. If he does, I hope he posts a link to it here somewhere.

Regardless, good for him/her. Its about time someone stood up to a council member.

, ,

HRT Names Interim CEO

Jan 30th

Posted by 757HR in Local Politics

No comments

HRT has named Philip A. Shucet as the new interim CEO for the company. Financially, I think that this is a great move. Due to his record on cost-control, he should bring some much needed eyes on the various budgets of HRT. One minor thing that I have to wonder about is: The Virginian-Pilot reported that “when Shucet took over VDOT in 2002, one in every five construction projects was behind schedule, and more than half were over budget. By the end of his three-year tenure, 75 percent of projects were on time and 80 percent were on budget.” Now basic math tell us that, as for the budget part, he improved. He raised the “on budget” rate from less than 50% to around 80%. Unfortunately, basic math also tells us that, when it comes to on-time performance, he lost ground. “One in five” is 20%. That means, following various properties you thought you’d never use, 80% were on time. When he left, however, only 75% were on time. Not a large number, but large enough the Pilot decided it needed a better spin.

The part that I really worry about is whether his budgetary sense is going to have a positive or negative effect on ridership and ease of use. This man has very little in his published background that suggests that he knows anything about running a public transit company. I am not saying that this is a bad thing. Given the fact that most transit companies are poorly run, it might be time for someone who is different. I just think that we need to keep a watchful eye on what he thinks are cuts waiting to be made.

, , , ,
« Older Entries