Houston Red Lght Cameras....

peoples vote doesnt count anymore. stupid government make up their own rules and terms and fuck the tax payers! they make me sick! our credit rating down for the first time in history! tanks to the party in office

When they first went on I got tagged... fine was 75 bucks and if it goes unpaid they can withhold registration and license renewal.
Originally Posted by Spirit13

Can they really withold registration? What if the car is registered in a county other than Harris? Drivers License renewal is a state thing. It seems strange to me that they could effect that as well.

Can they really withold registration? What if the car is registered in a county other than Harris? Drivers License renewal is a state thing. It seems strange to me that they could effect that as well. Originally Posted by oilfieldscum

If I recall correctly, the authority as to registration is in the statute passed by legislature. And I recall correctly:

Texas Transportation Code

"Sec. 707.017. ENFORCEMENT. (a) If the owner of a motor vehicle is delinquent in the payment of a civil penalty imposed under this chapter, the county assessor-collector or the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles may refuse to register a motor vehicle alleged to have been involved in the violation."

I will check about the DL. I do not recall that authority. There is a prohibition of including a failure to pay the civil penalty on the driving record, which means to me that failure to pay will not affect DL. But I'll look.

peoples vote doesnt count anymore. Originally Posted by vampiroh_78

Peoples' votes count in a legal election, unless the chad is hanging.

If I recall correctly, the authority as to registration is in the statute passed by legislature. And I recall correctly:

Texas Transportation Code

"Sec. 707.017. ENFORCEMENT. (a) If the owner of a motor vehicle is delinquent in the payment of a civil penalty imposed under this chapter, the county assessor-collector or the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles may refuse to register a motor vehicle alleged to have been involved in the violation."

. Originally Posted by LexusLover

The key word in that quote.

The key word in that quote. Originally Posted by oilfieldscum

Yes, that is a "key word" ... and the key words in the question are:

"Can they really withold registration?"

Answer: Yes the "can"!

I must admitt, I am with you on the red light thing, there should be a way to make intersections safer.

My entire beef is the way the City allows a private company to profit off of laws that carry the full weight of a government body behind them. If the City wants red light cameras, buy them, maintain them, and keep all of the proceeds in the City.

Also, the way the entire election proccess was held, and finally overturned by that dipwad judge was just plain wrong. The City did everything it could to keep the ballot off the agenda, then tried fancy wording to confuse voters, spent countless dollars in the proccess, and then, when the voters voted to take the cameras down, called "kings x".

It's just plain wrong.

Yes, that is a "key word" ... and the key words in the question are:

"Can they really withold registration?"

Answer: Yes the "can"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Then the question should be have they ever withheld anyones registration over a red light camera infraction?

I have been told that Ft. Bend Co. does not honor the "withhold" request.

Don't you pretty much acquiesce your rights when you sign for a drivers license which makes you a corporation?

They can pretty much do what they want unless you really do get in there and learn the law yourself.

I have always understood that the biggest hit you take is on your credit rating when they go after you for non-payment.

My entire beef is the way the City allows a private company to profit off of laws that carry the full weight of a government body behind them. If the City wants red light cameras, buy them, maintain them, and keep all of the proceeds in the City. Originally Posted by Jackie S

#1: If it flies, floats, or f**ks, rent it.
#2: The City doesn't get to keep all the money anyway by statute (or fines either).

Somewhere above I posted the disbursement of the proceeds, which by the way is pissing in a hurricane comparatively speaking to the City's budget, even the law enforcement portion of the budget by itself.

If the judge's ruling on the validity of the election stands up on appeal, it is an expensive lesson for all concerned. As in most cases, it is cheaper to "do it right" the first time than try to "undo it" or "fix it" afterwards.

Lesson: Everyone keep an eye on the "agenda" items (its on the internet) and spread the word (using the internet) to fight it at counsel meetings, and then to get out the vote one direction or another.

Do I give a rat's ass about the cameras? No. I don't cut red lights.
Do I care about the process? Yes.

There apparently is a lot of misinformation (distortion) on all sides, whether it is intentional or not is usually difficult to tell. A lot of the "information" is hype from the media playing to the audience or market.

Just my opinion: If these cameras were someone's idea of "making money for the City," I hope for the financial wellbeing of the City in the future that the person is no longer being paid by the City. Mayor White comes to mind, because it was "cranked up" and contracted on his watch.

one of my suppliers sells the license plate spray at $20.00 + per can.
It doesnt work by the way, but he sells the shit of it. When customers
come in to complain about tickets he just smiles and says sorry....

Then the question should be ...? Originally Posted by oilfieldscum

But it wasn't. Which is the point.

The election should have been legally conducted, but it wasn't.

Discussing reality rarely involves discourse about what ought to be.

Somebody probably got paid......I doubt it is the city.