Smart City or Big Brother?

by

I get a little nervous when government, especially local governments start suggesting video monitoring in public spaces outdoors;

It’s a reoccurring crime in Sioux Falls, vandals damaging art on the Sioux Falls SculptureWalk.

That’s why Sioux Falls’ IT manager says the city is looking at monitoring the area through video cameras.

“So if somebody is starting to climb onto a sculpture, that video technology can alert a staff member. Then somebody can go check it out,” IT Manager Jon Klemme said.

Trust me, not a fan of art vandals, but when you put expensive bronzes in public spaces, things can happen, that is why they are insured. Besides, I think the expense to taxpayers to protect art that is insured with video monitoring isn’t worth it. I also find it ironic that the city would consider video monitoring art when they said it is too expensive to store data for police to have body cameras? Let’s talk about priorities.

The city has also added several traffic signals that move cars more safely and quickly using artificial intelligence.

As I have told people, I haven’t noticed a difference on Minnesota Avenue with traffic flow, so not sure how well it is working. What they do need to fix is the light at 26th and Cliff that is timed goofy all the time, and while they are at it fix the roller coaster ride over the RR tracks in front of Avera on Cliff. Quite possibly one of the worst street repair jobs I have seen in the city.

How can we also forget the UNCONSITUTIONAL red light cameras that had to be taken down?

Think about all of the street lights in Sioux Falls. To save money and electricity, those lights could be turned off at night until technology senses movement nearby.

Now that is a good idea, I much prefer movement detectors over video monitoring.

Culbertson says people are often concerned when a city starts collecting more data, so city officials should make sure citizens are comfortable with the technology before it’s rolled out.

In reality, this should really be dictated by city ordinance and voted on by the citizens through the Charter Revision Commission and a city election. We must take government monitoring seriously. They already snoop in our yards and Bruce has even caught them digging around his junk pile during Project NICE. We pay city employees to SERVICE us, NOT SNOOP on us. If you are concerned about the well being of your private property that is the responsibility of the individual, NOT the city.

*You know what would be really fun, live web feed cameras installed in the City Center Admin building so we can watch city employees work 🙂

Red Light Cameras, trouble all over the country

by

These things need to be taken out;

If you happen to drive too fast through Elmwood Place, Ohio, the cards are stacked against you, according to a judge who calls the village’s automated speeding camera “a scam that motorists can’t win.”

Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Robert Ruehlman on Thursday ruled that the village’s ordinance violated due process. He issued an injunction barring its enforcement.

There have been numerous legal challenges across the U.S. to red-light camera laws but observers said this is the first ruling they know of striking down a municipality’s speeding-camera law.

“Speed-camera cases have been litigated but we have not come across one where a judge has said, ‘Stop this,'” attorney Mike Allen, whose firm brought the case, told MSN News on Friday. “I think it’s going to touch off a firestorm around the country. I really do.”

Looks likes the red light cameras may be toast

by

Correct me if I am wrong, but according to Item #19 on this coming week’s council agenda, looks like the red light cameras are finally toast, that is if the council approves the ordinance change; redlight

Wonder if Argue Endorser publisher Beck will show up crying about how red light cameras save lives. Being a cautious and defensive driver and/or pedestrian saves lives, unconstitutional ordinances complicate and burden those lives.

L.A. City Council shuts down red-light cameras (H/T – Helga)

by

Imagine that, paying red-light camera tickets is voluntary? Who knew? Of course it is voluntary, if you are not being charged with a criminal offense because an officer is NOT present, how can you expect to pay a fine for something isn’t a criminal offense? I have a feeling the cameras will never come back on in Sioux Falls.

July 28, 2011

After months of intense debate over the fate and effectiveness of red-light cameras, the L.A. City Council on Wednesday delivered a final blow to the controversial program, voting unanimously to shut it down July 31.

The 13-0 vote came in the wake of a backlash over disclosures that paying hefty fines for camera-issued tickets is considered “voluntary” by many city officials and because the Los Angeles County Superior Court has opted not to aggressively enforce collections against those who simply ignore the citations.

“Let it die, enough already,” Councilman Paul Krekorian begged his colleagues. “Let’s just be done with this and move on.”

Since the Police Commission decided in early June to kill the program, the issue has ricocheted through a series of City Hall committee hearings and council debates.

Some council members, like Bernard C. Parks, insisted the program helps save lives and pays for itself in intangible safety improvements. Others said it should be terminated immediately.

Critics noted that most of the more than 180,000 photo tickets issued since the program began in 2004 were for illegal right turns, which many experts consider less dangerous than speeding through intersections against red lights.

But recent news that motorists in L.A. County can decline to pay or appear in court on camera-issued tickets without facing criminal charges, problems with the Department of Motor Vehicles or negative reports on credit scores, appeared to unite the council on Wednesday.

Parks, who joined the unanimous decision, said he was “not supportive of eliminating the system” and hopes to eventually bring back the cameras. He urged colleagues to concentrate on an orderly phase-out of the full program after the photo enforcement equipment is turned off.

City staff was directed to negotiate a contract extension with American Traffic Solutions, the private firm that operates the cameras. The extra time is needed, officials say, to deal with outstanding issues, including removing equipment and allowing the city to access the vendor’s records, including some 65,000 unpaid tickets.

Terms of the contract extension must be negotiated, but many council members said it should be “cost-neutral” and could last six to 18 months.

Much of Wednesday’s debate focused on the city’s inability to pursue those who simply ignore tickets. There has been an uproar in recent days from drivers who diligently paid their fines. Some drivers have unsuccessfully demanded refunds and contemplated the possibility of a class-action lawsuit to recover fines and fees that can top $500.

Court officials have chosen not to aggressively enforce penalties for camera tickets when the recipient fails to respond. They note the tickets are mailed to a vehicle’s registered owner, who may not be the person who committed the violation. The only potential problem for those who do not respond to the tickets, officials said, would be the appearance of a delinquent traffic violation on a background search of court files.

Councilman Mitchell Englander warned that could lead to “severe” consequences from current or future employers who take issue with alleged or outstanding traffic violations.

Jim McCluskey, a spokesman for FedEx, said the company prides itself on safety and has its own set of disciplinary procedures to deal with alleged moving violations involving future or current drivers and prospective employees.

“Any driving violation is something that we’re aware of,” he said. “Whether they’re enforced or not, we’re always encouraging safe drivers.”