Taking on the Government MURRIETA: Red-light camera petition due Tuesday (over 6K to be handed in).
Ban the Cams note: Regardless of the outcome, Diana Serafin has done a AWESOME JOB in bring attention to the city that the VOTERS WANT TO DECIDE THIS! Not Democracy Denying ATS!
(Special thanks to www.stpetecamers.org for the link!)
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/murrieta/article_c5e7360a-2125-59b6-99bf-857cb96bbdc6.html
MURRIETA: Red-light camera petition due Tuesday
Story Discussion MURRIETA: Red-light camera petition due Tuesday
By NELSY RODRIGUEZ
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
North County Times | Posted: Saturday, September 17, 2011 5:00 pm
Red-light camera activist Diana Serafin stands in front of a red-light camera at the corner of Murrieta Hot Springs and Whitewood roads in Murrieta. Serafin has collected signatures on petitions seeking to ban use of the cameras in the city. JAMIE SCOTT LYTLE |
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Petition signatures due Tuesday
Murrieta resident Diana Serafin is collecting signatures to qualify for the ballot an initiative that would ban the use of red light cameras in the city.
To sign the petition, contact Serafin at 951-677-7884 or 951-526-9575.
Just days before Murrieta resident Diana Serafin must submit nearly 4,500 signatures to qualify for a ballot an initiative that would ban red-light cameras in the city, Serafin said Thursday that she is bracing herself for as many as one-fourth of the more than 6,000 signatures she's collected to be disqualified.
In checking the signatures she's collected over roughly six months against Riverside County registrar of voters office lists, Serafin said she found that many people who had lost their homes to foreclosure had not changed their address, and therefore may not be registered voters in the city.
"I've gone through probably 900 voter registrations now," Serafin said of the extra step she's taken to register residents to vote before they sign the petition to ensure the initiative qualifies for a ballot. "I know I got over the minimum (number of signatures required on the petition), but there were probably 1,000 people that swore they were registered, but they're not."
By Tuesday, Serafin must submit at least 4,470 signatures of people who are registered to vote in Murrieta to the City Clerk. The signatures will then be verified by the Riverside County registrar of voters office.
If the minimum requirement is not met, the initiative will not be put on the ballot. Residents who oppose the cameras then would have to take their fight to City Hall when the City Council is ready to award a new contract to American Traffic Solutions, the vendor that operates three cameras in Murrieta.
City officials said they plan to increase use of the technology because it offers greater protections to drivers and pedestrians at city intersections. In January, the council approved adding four more cameras, primarily along Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Interstates 15 and 215. It was their move to add more cameras that spurred the petition to ban them.
Rebecca Spencer, a spokeswoman for the county registrar of voters office, said last week that employees determine whether the signatures are qualified based on the voter's registered address on the day they sign a petition.
"If an address changes while (the petition is) in process, that does not necessarily invalidate the signature," she said. "As long as they were registered to vote at that address at the time they signed the petition, it's valid."
Serafin said she believes that most of the questionable signatures that concern her belong to people who still live in the city, but not at the address at which they were registered to vote.
Even anticipating that hundreds of signatures will be thrown out, Serafin said she believes she has collected enough valid signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot.
But, to be sure, she said Thursday that she will spend the weekend going door-to-door to collect more. She said any registered voter who hasn't yet signed but wants to can call her.
"I'm just praying," she said. "That's all I can do."
Call staff writer Nelsy Rodriguez at 951-676-4315, ext. 2626.
Just days before Murrieta resident Diana Serafin must submit nearly 4,500 signatures to qualify for a ballot an initiative that would ban red-light cameras in the city, Serafin said Thursday that she is bracing herself for as many as one-fourth of the more than 6,000 signatures she's collected to be disqualified.
In checking the signatures she's collected over roughly six months against Riverside County registrar of voters office lists, Serafin said she found that many people who had lost their homes to foreclosure had not changed their address, and therefore may not be registered voters in the city.
"I've gone through probably 900 voter registrations now," Serafin said of the extra step she's taken to register residents to vote before they sign the petition to ensure the initiative qualifies for a ballot. "I know I got over the minimum (number of signatures required on the petition), but there were probably 1,000 people that swore they were registered, but they're not."
By Tuesday, Serafin must submit at least 4,470 signatures of people who are registered to vote in Murrieta to the City Clerk. The signatures will then be verified by the Riverside County registrar of voters office.
If the minimum requirement is not met, the initiative will not be put on the ballot. Residents who oppose the cameras then would have to take their fight to City Hall when the City Council is ready to award a new contract to American Traffic Solutions, the vendor that operates three cameras in Murrieta.
City officials said they plan to increase use of the technology because it offers greater protections to drivers and pedestrians at city intersections. In January, the council approved adding four more cameras, primarily along Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Interstates 15 and 215. It was their move to add more cameras that spurred the petition to ban them.
Rebecca Spencer, a spokeswoman for the county registrar of voters office, said last week that employees determine whether the signatures are qualified based on the voter's registered address on the day they sign a petition.
"If an address changes while (the petition is) in process, that does not necessarily invalidate the signature," she said. "As long as they were registered to vote at that address at the time they signed the petition, it's valid."
Serafin said she believes that most of the questionable signatures that concern her belong to people who still live in the city, but not at the address at which they were registered to vote.
Even anticipating that hundreds of signatures will be thrown out, Serafin said she believes she has collected enough valid signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot.
But, to be sure, she said Thursday that she will spend the weekend going door-to-door to collect more. She said any registered voter who hasn't yet signed but wants to can call her.
"I'm just praying," she said. "That's all I can do."
Call staff writer Nelsy Rodriguez at 951-676-4315, ext. 2626.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Articles Menu
Find Info
Latest Comments
Member Login
