City "trying" to convince voters to "turn" back on Scameras.  Snake Oil salesman at work!

The snake oil salesman are busy trying to CON Garfield Heights Voters to "turn" back on the scameras, in a Restricted "version".

Work of advice, go look at the "definition of a school zone" in Maryland.  That was "restrictive"  NOT! 

http://www.cleveland.com/roadrant/index.ssf/2011/06/garfield_heights_seeking_elect.html

Garfield Heights seeking election reshoot on traffic cameras: Road Rant

Published: Sunday, June 26, 2011, 10:00 AM     Updated: Sunday, June 26, 2011, 1:56 PM
 By John Horton, The Plain Dealer The Plain Dealer

 
Garfield Heights residents made their opinions about traffic cameras known last year in a campaign that ended with voters pulling the plug on the devices. This fall, they may be asked to consider a more limited camera program. Will it make a difference?
Garfield Heights wants voters to refocus on traffic cameras for the sake of the kids.

A charter amendment zooming toward the November ballot seeks permission to use the long lens of the law near school zones as well as park and recreation areas. The goal is to slow traffic "to protect our children where they learn and play," Mayor Vic Collova told Road Rant. City Council on Monday approved a first reading of the legislation.

The action comes seven months after residents voted to turn off the city's cameras and outlaw photo enforcement.

Collova said he believes there's support for a more restricted camera program. He said the city consistently fields complaints about vehicles zipping past schools and playgrounds. "Who can argue against trying to slow down speeders in school zones?" the mayor said.

Or near them, as the legislation would permit cameras to be placed up to 300 feet outside school zones to target cars approaching those areas. Collova said police recommended expanding the enforcement zone around schools. He said the target area would be clearly marked by signs. "There's no entrapment here," he said.

An organizer of last year's successful "Ban the Cam" called the new proposal deceptive. Frank Wagner labeled the for-the-kids argument a ruse to bring back the cameras that boosted city finances. He cited the extension to outside school zones and the targeting of parks as evidence that Garfield Heights designed the proposal to maximize ticketing opportunities.

"Voters already said they don't want cameras," Wagner said. "That's why they got rid of them the first time."

But it looks like they'll be asked to give a second opinion.

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Title
Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Email
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (registered users only)
	Add Comment Preview