Ross County

Newer Entries »

Ohio Cities Fight Red-Light Cameras

October 27th, 2009
“Red Light Photo Enforced”: Sign grammar
Image by gsbrown99 via Flickr

As Redflex Traffic Systems fights a shareholder revolt at home in Australia, the speed camera vendor is simultaneously battling a public revolt against photo ticketing in two Ohio cities. Next Tuesday residents of Chillicothe and Heath will have the opportunity to vote on citizen-led initiatives that would ban the use of red light cameras and speed cameras. Redflex has poured substantial cash into an advertising blitz covering both towns.

“Vote NO on Issue 5 and keep Heath safe,” read a Redflex brochure sent to Heath voters this week. “In the last four months alone, at enforced intersections in Heath… red light running has reduced by almost half… 90 percent of speeders are not Heath residents.”  Duane Goodwin, who helped put the referendum on the city ballot, insisted that the Redflex numbers regarding the cameras’ safety benefit were bogus. He cited Redflex traffic counts that showed 58,754 fewer automobiles had traveled on camera-monitored roads — a 27 percent decrease in traffic — as a result of out-of-town motorists avoiding the cameras by shopping elsewhere.  ”Our little town revolves around business,” Goodwin said. “It’s a crushing blow.”

A survey of six national chain stores that operate in Heath as well as nearby Lancaster and Zanesville showed that Heath sales were off nearly 14 percent compared to a 2 to 3 percent drop in the other cities.  Redflex has fought back against the citizen initiative in Chillicothe with an even more aggressive advertising campaign. In addition to mailing a version of the Heath brochure with one new photograph and the city name replaced, Redflex enlisted Police Chief Roger Moore as the company’s spokesman in a radio promotion. Moore told voters that approving the initiative would result in a total ban on the use of radar guns and other commonly used police equipment.  ”The language is pretty clear,” Moore explained in an interview with WBEX radio. “I just can’t see a scenario where a police officer is running radar and he can stop a car in one location, freeze them in time, go to that vehicle and write a citation. Without that happening they would be in violation of this proposed change.”

Rebekah Valentich, head of the group Citizens Against Photo Enforcement (CAPE), rejects Moore’s interpretation and wonders whether it is ethical for an appointed city official to appear in a commercial meant to influence an election for the financial benefit of a foreign corporation. A review of the proposed referendum language suggests it would allow the use of radar as long as “a law enforcement officer” presents the ticket to the alleged offender (view initiative text).  Compared to the resources available to Redflex to defend its multi-million dollar contracts, the citizen opponents must make do with a less well-financed response. CAPE has purchased a small newspaper advertisement along with twenty radio spots in Chillicothe — despite a failed effort by Redflex to buy all available airtime. In Heath, Goodwin happens to be owner of the Dr. Signs sign-making shop. Goodwin says the city’s business owners and residents across the entire city have been more than happy to put anti-camera signs on their property. At the end of the day, Goodwin believes his cause will succeed.

“I’m faithful,” Goodwin told us. “As mad as people are and as bad as business is hurting, I can’t believe we’ll be the first people to keep them.”

No city has ever voted in a referendum to keep photo enforcement. A copy of the Redflex campaign ads can be found in a 700k PDF file at the source link below.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

No comments »

Posted in Ross County

Tags:

Chillicothe Will Have Anti-Speed Camera Referendum

October 22nd, 2009
The Ross County Courthouse in Chillicothe
Image via Wikipedia

Chillicothe, Ohio residents will retain the right to vote out speed cameras on November 3 thanks to a Ohio Supreme Court ruling yesterday. Fearing the public would shut down his signature program, Chillicothe Mayor Joseph Sulzer had asked the high court for an emergency injunction blocking the citizen-led initiative. Sulzer argued that this step was needed because the proposed initiative was unconstitutional and the city was denied a fair chance to argue against it before the Ross County Board of Elections (view Sulzer’s court filing). The supreme court justices unanimously rejected his complaint.

“Chillicothe failed to act with the requisite diligence in asserting its claim for extraordinary relief in mandamus and prohibition,” the court explained. “Instead, the city delayed filing its protest until 119 days after the signed initiative petition was filed with the city auditor and 56 days after the city auditor certified the initiative petition to the board of elections. Chillicothe delayed an additional 26 days after the board denied its protest and certified the initiative to the election ballot to file this action for extraordinary relief.”  In previous election cases the court has thrown out challenges for delays as brief as nine days. The justices noted that the requirement that protests be timely is more than a mere formality because absentee ballots must be printed at least thirty-five days in advance of the election date. Sulzer’s protest was filed just one day before that deadline, September 29. Hearing the merits of a challenge at such a late date would have prejudiced the other side’s ability to prepare a compelling defense.

“Chillicothe has no legitimate excuse for its prolonged periods of delay in this case,” the court concluded. “The city did not need to wait for certification of the petition to file its protest… Based on the foregoing, Chillicothe failed to exercise the diligence required of relators in election cases, and we deny the writs based on laches. By so holding, we need not address the city’s claims.”
Rebekah Valentich, head of Citizens Against Photo Enforcement (CAPE), expressed relief at the decision. CAPE volunteers gathered the required signatures to put the measure on the ballot.
“After reading the Supreme court ruling, I think that I can safely speak on behalf of every CAPE member who fought for the citizens of Chillicothe and their right to vote,” Valentich told TheNewspaper. “Victory is sweet.”

Valentich is confident the referendum will pass as voters have never approved the use of cameras in a public vote. CAPE members want to take the issue a step further and boot the city council members responsible for putting the program in place. At-large Councilman Dustin Proehl is the only incumbent who voted against cameras and, as a result, enjoys CAPE support.
The rest of the council, save for the sixth ward seat, is being challenged by opponents of automated ticketing machines. Valentich herself is running for the second ward seat. The other challengers include Beth Neal, who is running in the first ward, Dan Evans in the third ward, Larry Depew in the fourth ward, Jeremy Siberell in the fifth ward and Bruce Arnold, who is running for council president.

Source: Chillicothe v. Ross County Board of Elections (Supreme Court of Ohio, 10/21/2009)
Source: www.TheNewspaper.com (a great site!)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

No comments »

Posted in Ross County

Tags:

Chillicothe, Ohio Fights Traffic Cameras

August 20th, 2009
Traffic camera
Image by Adrian Short via Flickr

Ohio City Attempts to Undermine Traffic Camera Referendum

Chillicothe, Ohio attempts to undermine November referendum on the use of photo enforcement.Activists in Chillicothe, Ohio vowed on Monday to fight efforts to sabotage a referendum on the use of traffic cameras. Residents signed a petition demanding the right to have a vote in November on whether to keep or outlaw red light cameras and speed cameras. Once on the ballot, no referendum of this type has ever failed to pass, and Chillicothe officials are doing what it takes to ensure that never happens. Assistant Law Director James L. Mann on Friday filed a formal petition with the Ross County Board of Elections seeking to block the petition.

“The city of Chillicothe… protests against the petition for the initiative petition for the reason that portions of the petition violate existing state law, portions of the petition violate the Ohio and United States Constitution and the petition is confusing and misleading to the voting public,” Mann wrote.  Mann argued that the petition is unlawful because, he claimed, a city may not by initiative bind the actions of county law enforcement. He also claimed that citizens may not “impair” the existing contract between Redflex, the private Australian company that actually operates every aspect of the program from installing cameras to mailing citations, and Chillicothe. Mann insisted that citizens of Chillicothe have no power to bind the future actions of the city council. In effect, he said that the council decision was beyond the power of citizens to correct.  ”The actions of the council of the city of Chillicothe in enacting Ordinance 151-07 and Chapter 315 of the Codified Ordinances were administrative and not legislative,” Mann wrote. “Therefore those actions are not subject to initiative proceedings.”

Rebekah Valentich, leader of the group Citizens Against Photo Enforcement, insisted that Mann’s arguments were without merit. Since the mid-Nineties, five cities — including two in Ohio — have used the initiative process to overturn photo enforcement programs. Not one of these efforts was sidelined by legal, contractual or constitutional challenges of the type cited by Mann. Valentich says her group has followed the letter and spirit of the law.  ”CAPE has collected valid signatures; the board of elections has certified the petitions and forwarded them to the secretary of state, where the wording has been approved for the ballot and have returned them to the board of elections,” Valentich said in a statement. “Now the city of Chillicothe has come forward protesting the petition, with a last ditch effort to take the voice away from the people.”

At least three other referendum efforts are scheduled for November’s ballot. Most recently, activists in Toledo, Ohio confirmed that they had secured the requisite number of signatures, as has the city of Heath. In College Station, Texas, officials this week backed down on an earlier effort to undermine the photo enforcement ballot initiative. Valentich said she is willing to go the distance to ensure citizens have the final word on automated ticketing machines.  ”We are not going to back down from those bullies,” Valentich said. “They can threaten all they want, but until the fat lady sings, the game is not over. As of now, it is still going on the ballot. If the board of elections agree with the city, than it will go to the supreme court.”  The mayor and city council members from Chillicothe ignored requests to comment for this story. A copy of the ballot initiative and Mann’s letter are available in a 250k PDF file at the source link below.

Source:Initiative Ordinance Restricting the Use of Mobile Speed Enforcement Vehicles (City of Chillicothe, Ohio, 8/14/2009)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

No comments »

Posted in Ross County

Tags:

Chillicothe, Ohio Anti-Camera Petition Succeeds

April 30th, 2009
Main Street in Chillicothe, Ohio, 6/17/2006 Ca...

Chillicothe, Ross County, Ohio

Activists in Chillicothe, Ohio obtained more than double the number of signatures required to call a vote to ban red light and speed cameras.

A third city in Ohio is poised to ban the use of photo enforcement. The Chillicothe group Citizens Against Photo Enforcement (CAPE) announced Thursday that it had submitted more than double the number of signatures required to give voters in November the choice of banning both speed cameras and red light cameras (view initiative text).

“CAPE is against the red light cameras because they are unsafe, they do not add safety to the city, they only add revenue and still to this day, we have illegal short yellows,” CAPE President Rebekah Valentich explained.

Under Ohio Code Section 4511.094, which became law on September 12, 2008, it is illegal for any camera-equipped intersection to have a yellow time duration of less than 4.0 seconds. Similar to a new Georgia law, cities must add one second of yellow time to any intersection using a camera. CAPE members caught local officials using yellows with durations under four seconds after the law had passed at intersections such as Bridge and Main. After the city increased the yellow to 4 seconds at this location, the number of citations issued dropped nearly 90 percent. According to the group, several intersections remain undertimed.

Given the strong petition support and the history of similar efforts, prospects are favorable for the referendum. A similar initiative banned cameras in Cincinnati last year. In 2006, three out of every four voters in Steubenville chose to kick out speed cameras after the devices had issued $600,000 in citations. Over the past twelve years, voters in Anchorage, Alaska; Peoria, Arizona and Batavia, Illinois have also banned cameras.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

No comments »

Posted in Ross County

Tags:

Chillicothe DUI Services

April 11th, 2008

Charles M. Rowland II is proud to offer services to persons accused of a DUI/OVI offense in Chillicothe, Ross County, Ohio.

If you find yourself accused of a misdemeanor DUI (now called OVI; operating a vehicle impaired) in Chillicothe, Ross County, Ohio you will appear before Judge Thomas E. Bunch or Judge John B. Street, or before Magistrate Jane Spring Martin.  The Chillicothe Municipal Court is located at 26 S. Paint St., Chillicothe, Ross County, Ohio.  You should visit the web site of the Chillicothe Municipal Court for valuable information about your Chillicothe DUI case.  If you are searching for an attorney who is located in Ross County, the site has information to begin your search.

Charles M. Rowland has the DUI/OVI CREDENTIALS to handle your Chillicothe Case: Charles served as the Xenia City Prosecutor and has served as a “Special Prosecutor” on high-profile felony cases. Charles is a proud member of the National College for DUI defense and in 2006 attended the intensive seminar on DUI law at Harvard University. National Patent Analytical Systems has certified Charles Rowland in the operation, diagnostic verification and calibration of the BAC DataMaster Breath Alcohol Testing Instrument, the most commonly used breath testing instrument in Ohio for DUI / OVI arrests. In 2007, Charles Rowland was the first attorney in the State of Ohio certificated on the Intoxilyzer 8000 breath testing machine. In 2009, Charles Rowland attended the National College for DUI Defense 16th Annual Scientific Evidence Seminar where he received training on the Intoxilyzer 5000. Charles M. Rowland II was the first attorney in the United States to earn a certificate in Forensic Sobriety Assessment. FSA certification requires proficiency in the scientific principles and research relating to sobriety testing in a DUI/OVI stop. It subsumes the NHTSA training (knowledge of the NHTSA manual is required) and greatly extends it. In 2009, Charles M. Rowland II will be an attendee in the most current NHTSA approved SFST training curriculum. This is the same NHTSA SFST training course that law enforcement officers are trained in nationwide and testify to in court.

No comments »

Posted in Ross County

Tags: