The Muni's, in their quest for illegal tax revenue, have been defrauding the schools of their funding.
Amicus Brief "friend of the court brief" filed in the Municipal League lawsuit against SB5/Macks Creek Law in Missouri.
The Municipalities have a bizarre interpretation of the Missouri Constitution that Article One Section one is either void or that the people have assigned their authority to the municipalities. Most of which are nothing more than homeowner associations on steroids. They have no legal power, they only have perceived power. Even the Charter Cities are subservient to state law. They wrongly argue that "home rule" gives them immunity from the Constitutions and other laws within their boundaries.
Home rule does not apply to non-charter 3rd and 4th class cities. Home rule is void when the city law conflicts with state or county law.
The interesting part of this brief is that the Missouri Constitution MANDATES that all fines, including traffic fines must be diverted to the state school fund. That the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that any fine collected in Missouri must go to the school fund. Each of the many challenges has been rebuffed by the court as saying ALL fines in Missouri must be diverted to the schools. That Legislative action does not trump the Constitutional Rule. That if the legislators wish to change this, they must follow the rules to change the Missouri Constitution.
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
What is a troll booth
A troll booth is my moniker for a variety of traffic enforcement programs for fiscal rewards under the false claims of safety. Often these troll booths make driving more dangerous for the motorist.
Why do troll booths work: troll booths work because a portion or all of the ticket proceeds go back to the city to fund the city or the police department. Some state limit what ticket revenue can be used for. For instance California (may have changed) allows 35% of the ticket revenue to go back to the agency that issued the ticket. AND the revenue can only be used to buy equipment, no salaries.
On the other end is cities that fund their police department or heavily subsidize the city from ticket revenue. Such as St Ann Missouri who obtained $3.2Million in ticket revenue in one year, primarily from the state highway system. This is a city of 15,000 with 2 miles of interstate with 1 major and 1 minor offramp/onramp on their northern border and less then 10 miles of state highways.
Photo enforcement is the new extreme of toll booths. No officer supervising the operation, no officer "decision capability" no matter how they spin it. The cameras produce lots of revenue and do nothing to improve safety.
If they were for safety, the Red Light Camera companies would be getting accolades from established national safety organizations. But they get awards from "most profitable new business", "most growth", "coolest videos". One is now under investigation for bribing government officials. But they all "bribe" government officials with promises of new revenue streams and donations to election campaigns and lobbyists. If it was about safety, they would need no lobbyists, no donations for campaigns, and certainly not have to resort to bribery to sell their product.
A future blog will be on the engineering. On a level playing field, I can destroy any professional engineer making claims that the cameras increase safety. The most interesting is the videos of accidents taken by their cameras to create the "need". If their cameras prevented the accidents, then there would be no videos of red light accidents. The most interesting is the tale of two studies. In January 2012 Kansas City Police published a study with full data, and pointed out a flaw with all other red light camera studies which proves them to be defective and unusable. This careful study showed the cameras did not perform as promised. American Traffic Solutions, the city's vendor, had a public fit, and authored or helped author an executive summary dated May 2012 that did not use data, made lots of false or carefully spun marketing claims. But has every error imaginable in it. This and the other major company under corruption charges shows that these companies cannot be trusted. Thus one assumes the cameras are rigged. in a future blog, I will explain HOW the camera companies can rig the targets for maximum tickets whether the person did a micro violation or was within the law.
Why do troll booths work: troll booths work because a portion or all of the ticket proceeds go back to the city to fund the city or the police department. Some state limit what ticket revenue can be used for. For instance California (may have changed) allows 35% of the ticket revenue to go back to the agency that issued the ticket. AND the revenue can only be used to buy equipment, no salaries.
On the other end is cities that fund their police department or heavily subsidize the city from ticket revenue. Such as St Ann Missouri who obtained $3.2Million in ticket revenue in one year, primarily from the state highway system. This is a city of 15,000 with 2 miles of interstate with 1 major and 1 minor offramp/onramp on their northern border and less then 10 miles of state highways.
Photo enforcement is the new extreme of toll booths. No officer supervising the operation, no officer "decision capability" no matter how they spin it. The cameras produce lots of revenue and do nothing to improve safety.
If they were for safety, the Red Light Camera companies would be getting accolades from established national safety organizations. But they get awards from "most profitable new business", "most growth", "coolest videos". One is now under investigation for bribing government officials. But they all "bribe" government officials with promises of new revenue streams and donations to election campaigns and lobbyists. If it was about safety, they would need no lobbyists, no donations for campaigns, and certainly not have to resort to bribery to sell their product.
A future blog will be on the engineering. On a level playing field, I can destroy any professional engineer making claims that the cameras increase safety. The most interesting is the videos of accidents taken by their cameras to create the "need". If their cameras prevented the accidents, then there would be no videos of red light accidents. The most interesting is the tale of two studies. In January 2012 Kansas City Police published a study with full data, and pointed out a flaw with all other red light camera studies which proves them to be defective and unusable. This careful study showed the cameras did not perform as promised. American Traffic Solutions, the city's vendor, had a public fit, and authored or helped author an executive summary dated May 2012 that did not use data, made lots of false or carefully spun marketing claims. But has every error imaginable in it. This and the other major company under corruption charges shows that these companies cannot be trusted. Thus one assumes the cameras are rigged. in a future blog, I will explain HOW the camera companies can rig the targets for maximum tickets whether the person did a micro violation or was within the law.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)