TexasCHLforum.com

Stickland's first bill to be passed!

What about the bill that holds Dallas accountable for reducing the yellow light duration below the TxDOT minimum for the purpose of maximizing their ROI on the cameras? Killing people for money is generally frowned upon.

the problem is that someone...I can't remember who, in the House, added an Amendment that allows cities to complete their contracts. There is one here in San Antonio that won't complete until 34, they renewed their contract during the session.

SewTexas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:00 pm the problem is that someone...I can't remember who, in the House, added an Amendment that allows cities to complete their contracts. There is one here in San Antonio that won't complete until 34, they renewed their contract during the session.

That is crazy!

I would like to see how many of these tickets go unpaid now.

SewTexas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:00 pm the problem is that someone...I can't remember who, in the House, added an Amendment that allows cities to complete their contracts. There is one here in San Antonio that won't complete until 34, they renewed their contract during the session.

They had to renew it before May 7 for the law to allow it to continue. And it cannot have a clause allowing it to be cancelled for state laws changing. It would not surprise me, knowing San Antonio, if they did this. The Governor said there are only two cities with these types of contracts. I would almost bet San Antonio is one.

Well, even if a couple of cities still have them, it won't last forever. Glad to see no others will be able to put them up. They may have generated revenue for cities, but I think they created more danger than they ever prevented.

srothstein wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:00 pm

SewTexas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:00 pm the problem is that someone...I can't remember who, in the House, added an Amendment that allows cities to complete their contracts. There is one here in San Antonio that won't complete until 34, they renewed their contract during the session.

They had to renew it before May 7 for the law to allow it to continue. And it cannot have a clause allowing it to be cancelled for state laws changing. It would not surprise me, knowing San Antonio, if they did this. The Governor said there are only two cities with these types of contracts. I would almost bet San Antonio is one.

Close. Leon Valley and Balcones Height.

Several articles quoted Stickland as saying that only 2 cities would be able to continue their camera program past the effective date, but neither article mentions which cities. Anyone know?

http://www.fox7austin.com/news/local-ne ... a-ban-bill

So, currently, we think as it is, the bill will continue to operate red light cameras in just two cities for a couple of years until the contract is timed out,” Stickland said.

SewTexas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:00 pm the problem is that someone...I can't remember who, in the House, added an Amendment that allows cities to complete their contracts. There is one here in San Antonio that won't complete until 34, they renewed their contract during the session.

Is 2034 really true? That is crazy if true. The Feds have a law that federal contracts cannot be longer than 5 years, Texas should have something similar.

It should also be legal to ignore red light tix from those two cities. Can theGovernor issue pardons for traffic tickets? That would be a hoot.

Let's try and put one misconception to rest...
The bill (now law) does not allow a contract to continue IF the contract contains an opt-out clause, allowing the municipality to break the contract if the state passes a law making the cameras illegal. If any municipality failed to have such a clause in their contract, shame on them. If there is such a clause, the contract terminates on the effective date of this new law.

Imagine the financial liability on a municipality that failed to have this clause in their contract if the state implemented this ban without the grandfather clause. Contracting 101.

Again (per my post above), Stickland is claiming only 2 cities will have "legal" cameras remaining after the effective date. I would love to know which 2 cities, so I can avoid them.

Here is the text from the bill..
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/b ... 01631F.htm

(b) Subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a
contract for the administration and enforcement of a photographic
traffic signal enforcement system entered into before May 7, 2019,
that authorizes termination of the contract on the basis of adverse
state legislation.

I did not realize it was ONLY Leon Valley and Balcones Heights! wow! I only knew what I was reading on local groups.
I wonder if the date was added in joint committee? Local rumor is that LV and BH renewed their contracts when they realized the bill looked like it was going to pass. From what I was reading LV makes a ton of money from their cameras.

I can't be sure the 2 are Leon Valley and Balcones Heights. That was a guess.

Leon Valley had a previous defense that every ticket was reviewed by an officer, so that the tickets were not machine generated. I hope their city budget does not include the funds to continue to argue this.