What if they gave a revenue-enhancement party and everybody came?

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On 3 Jul 2006 15:58:07 -0700, "jgar the jorrible"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"A tsunami of tickets has hit and we're drowning."
>>
>>http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...i2cameras.html
>
>
>>VISTA – The 38 red-light cameras at North County intersections have
>>been so successful in nabbing scofflaws that court officials are
>>swamped processing the paperwork.
>>
>>And a solution, such as hiring more workers, is not likely because
>>the court's budget is already locked in for the 2006-2007 fiscal
>>year, said Marguerite Wagner, the Superior Court's supervising judge.
>
>
>>The court administrator has started “overtime parties” in which clerks
>>work on weekends to process the paperwork. Tickets have also been
>>dispersed to other clerks in courthouses around the county for processing.
>
>
> I see... So there's no money to hire more workers, but there IS money
> to pay existing civil service workers time-and-a-half or even
> double-time for overtime? Looks like some union negotiator kissed some
> serious sphincter to get that sweetheart deal. I wonder if these
> pencil-pushers will be making six-figure incomes from their overtime
> pay like those cops down in Texas do?
>

The truth is, much as the whole setup disgusts me, that paying a single
worker lots of overtime is likely cheaper than paying two workers *and
benefits.* I know at my previous employer I was told that when I asked
about hiring another technician I was told that unless the service
department maintained at least 70 hours of overtime a week for a fairly
long period (I forget exactly what it was,) that it wasn't going to
happen for financial reasons - apparently benefits are expensive enough
that paying the employee OT is easier than paying another employee
straight time plus benefits, plus then you don't have to worry about
layoffs when things slow down.

>
>>She noted that the court receives no direct revenue from the fines.
>>
>>Officials from the cities using the cameras empathize with the
>>court's plight but say they are in no position to help.
>>
>>Nearly all claim they are breaking even or losing money with the
>>cameras but continue to use them because they believe the clear
>>reduction in injury accidents at the intersections is worth the costs.
>
>
> <sniff sniff> Smells like BULL****. The obvious solution is to disable
> some of the cameras until the backlog can be cleared and budget can be
> allocated to hire sufficient staff. But the greedy ****s just can't
> let go of all that easy money, can they?

ah, but it's all for the CHIIIILLLLLDRRUN. all the busybodies would get
very upset if anyone came out and admitted that it was all about the
revenue, and not about safety at all.

Or, I suppose, San Diego could actually be a localized pocket of blatant
RLRers, in which case hell yeah leave the cameras in place. (the odds
of that being the case IMHO are vanishingly slim however.)

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> > On 3 Jul 2006 15:58:07 -0700, "jgar the jorrible"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"A tsunami of tickets has hit and we're drowning."
> >>
> >>http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...i2cameras.html
> >
> >
> >>VISTA - The 38 red-light cameras at North County intersections have
> >>been so successful in nabbing scofflaws that court officials are
> >>swamped processing the paperwork.
> >>
> >>And a solution, such as hiring more workers, is not likely because
> >>the court's budget is already locked in for the 2006-2007 fiscal
> >>year, said Marguerite Wagner, the Superior Court's supervising judge.
> >
> >
> >>The court administrator has started "overtime parties" in which clerks
> >>work on weekends to process the paperwork. Tickets have also been
> >>dispersed to other clerks in courthouses around the county for processing.
> >
> >
> > I see... So there's no money to hire more workers, but there IS money
> > to pay existing civil service workers time-and-a-half or even
> > double-time for overtime? Looks like some union negotiator kissed some
> > serious sphincter to get that sweetheart deal. I wonder if these
> > pencil-pushers will be making six-figure incomes from their overtime
> > pay like those cops down in Texas do?
> >
>
> The truth is, much as the whole setup disgusts me, that paying a single
> worker lots of overtime is likely cheaper than paying two workers *and
> benefits.* I know at my previous employer I was told that when I asked
> about hiring another technician I was told that unless the service
> department maintained at least 70 hours of overtime a week for a fairly
> long period (I forget exactly what it was,) that it wasn't going to
> happen for financial reasons - apparently benefits are expensive enough
> that paying the employee OT is easier than paying another employee
> straight time plus benefits, plus then you don't have to worry about
> layoffs when things slow down.

That kind of stuff cracks me up, as I have all the work my brain can
handle, as an independent or sub companies pay me way more than perm,
for years on end... they overstate the benefit cost, and have burned
their own butts with the at-will stuff.

>
> >
> >>She noted that the court receives no direct revenue from the fines.
> >>
> >>Officials from the cities using the cameras empathize with the
> >>court's plight but say they are in no position to help.
> >>
> >>Nearly all claim they are breaking even or losing money with the
> >>cameras but continue to use them because they believe the clear
> >>reduction in injury accidents at the intersections is worth the costs.
> >
> >
> > <sniff sniff> Smells like BULL****. The obvious solution is to disable
> > some of the cameras until the backlog can be cleared and budget can be
> > allocated to hire sufficient staff. But the greedy ****s just can't
> > let go of all that easy money, can they?
>
> ah, but it's all for the CHIIIILLLLLDRRUN. all the busybodies would get
> very upset if anyone came out and admitted that it was all about the
> revenue, and not about safety at all.
>
> Or, I suppose, San Diego could actually be a localized pocket of blatant
> RLRers, in which case hell yeah leave the cameras in place. (the odds
> of that being the case IMHO are vanishingly slim however.)

Actually, Vista is such a localized pocket. But it also has a high
proportion of elderly and those from non-car-based cultures, and since
I personally am distracted by the strobes, even though I know they are
there and what they are doing, I have to wonder if others are even more
distracted. I have a real philosophical problem with automated
infractions run by private companies.

Last year, I sent the mayor a reference to an article about evaluating
the safety effect of the cameras, and this was his response (since he
is a public figure in official capacity, I feel I can publish email
without asking):

--------------------

Dear Mr. Garry:

Thank you for your email expressing your concerns about the City of
Vista's Red Light Camera program.

The City's primary reason for the Red Light Camera program is and
always has been traffic safety. Since the City began enforcement of
red light camera violations in July 2004, overall traffic safety at the
four intersections that have red Light Cameras has improved
significantly. In the year prior to the Red Light Camera program's
implementation, there were five major injuries and one traffic fatality
at these intersections. Since the implementation of the program, there
have been no major injuries or fatalities. This dramatic decrease in
major injuries and fatalities as well as the overall fifteen percent
decrease in documented collisions is the reason why the City Council
continues to support the Red Light Camera program.

Thank you again for your email and your interest in traffic safety.

Sincerely,

Morris B. Vance

Mayor

-------------

I just got my first ticket in years, 55 in 40 zone, radar motorcycle
cop in Oceanside. The cop told me I should hear my options from the
court in about 3 weeks...

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.automobilemag.com/multime...eet_lick_test/

jgar the jorrible wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>>Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>
>>>On 3 Jul 2006 15:58:07 -0700, "jgar the jorrible"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"A tsunami of tickets has hit and we're drowning."
>>>>
>>>>http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...i2cameras.html
>>>
>>>
>>>>VISTA - The 38 red-light cameras at North County intersections have
>>>>been so successful in nabbing scofflaws that court officials are
>>>>swamped processing the paperwork.
>>>>
>>>>And a solution, such as hiring more workers, is not likely because
>>>>the court's budget is already locked in for the 2006-2007 fiscal
>>>>year, said Marguerite Wagner, the Superior Court's supervising judge.
>>>
>>>
>>>>The court administrator has started "overtime parties" in which clerks
>>>>work on weekends to process the paperwork. Tickets have also been
>>>>dispersed to other clerks in courthouses around the county for processing.
>>>
>>>
>>>I see... So there's no money to hire more workers, but there IS money
>>>to pay existing civil service workers time-and-a-half or even
>>>double-time for overtime? Looks like some union negotiator kissed some
>>>serious sphincter to get that sweetheart deal. I wonder if these
>>>pencil-pushers will be making six-figure incomes from their overtime
>>>pay like those cops down in Texas do?
>>>
>>
>>The truth is, much as the whole setup disgusts me, that paying a single
>>worker lots of overtime is likely cheaper than paying two workers *and
>>benefits.* I know at my previous employer I was told that when I asked
>>about hiring another technician I was told that unless the service
>>department maintained at least 70 hours of overtime a week for a fairly
>>long period (I forget exactly what it was,) that it wasn't going to
>>happen for financial reasons - apparently benefits are expensive enough
>>that paying the employee OT is easier than paying another employee
>>straight time plus benefits, plus then you don't have to worry about
>>layoffs when things slow down.
>
>
> That kind of stuff cracks me up, as I have all the work my brain can
> handle, as an independent or sub companies pay me way more than perm,
> for years on end... they overstate the benefit cost, and have burned
> their own butts with the at-will stuff.
>
>
>>>>She noted that the court receives no direct revenue from the fines.
>>>>
>>>>Officials from the cities using the cameras empathize with the
>>>>court's plight but say they are in no position to help.
>>>>
>>>>Nearly all claim they are breaking even or losing money with the
>>>>cameras but continue to use them because they believe the clear
>>>>reduction in injury accidents at the intersections is worth the costs.
>>>
>>>
>>><sniff sniff> Smells like BULL****. The obvious solution is to disable
>>>some of the cameras until the backlog can be cleared and budget can be
>>>allocated to hire sufficient staff. But the greedy ****s just can't
>>>let go of all that easy money, can they?
>>
>>ah, but it's all for the CHIIIILLLLLDRRUN. all the busybodies would get
>>very upset if anyone came out and admitted that it was all about the
>>revenue, and not about safety at all.
>>
>>Or, I suppose, San Diego could actually be a localized pocket of blatant
>>RLRers, in which case hell yeah leave the cameras in place. (the odds
>>of that being the case IMHO are vanishingly slim however.)
>
>
> Actually, Vista is such a localized pocket. But it also has a high
> proportion of elderly and those from non-car-based cultures, and since
> I personally am distracted by the strobes, even though I know they are
> there and what they are doing, I have to wonder if others are even more
> distracted. I have a real philosophical problem with automated
> infractions run by private companies.
>
> Last year, I sent the mayor a reference to an article about evaluating
> the safety effect of the cameras, and this was his response (since he
> is a public figure in official capacity, I feel I can publish email
> without asking):
>
> --------------------
>
> Dear Mr. Garry:
>
> Thank you for your email expressing your concerns about the City of
> Vista's Red Light Camera program.
>
> The City's primary reason for the Red Light Camera program is and
> always has been traffic safety. Since the City began enforcement of
> red light camera violations in July 2004, overall traffic safety at the
> four intersections that have red Light Cameras has improved
> significantly. In the year prior to the Red Light Camera program's
> implementation, there were five major injuries and one traffic fatality
> at these intersections. Since the implementation of the program, there
> have been no major injuries or fatalities. This dramatic decrease in
> major injuries and fatalities as well as the overall fifteen percent
> decrease in documented collisions is the reason why the City Council
> continues to support the Red Light Camera program.
>
> Thank you again for your email and your interest in traffic safety.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Morris B. Vance
>
> Mayor
>
> -------------
>
> I just got my first ticket in years, 55 in 40 zone, radar motorcycle
> cop in Oceanside. The cop told me I should hear my options from the
> court in about 3 weeks...
>
> jg
> --
> @home.com is bogus.
> http://www.automobilemag.com/multime...eet_lick_test/
>
I wrote:

"She noted that the court receives no direct revenue from the fines."

That statement by the court administrator is patently untrue. The court
(which is a branch of state government) keeps more than half of the fine
money. For most courts, that is a huge jump in revenue. On my website,
I have FAQ # 16 which discusses the distribution in a typical county (LA).

If you have the time, you should also read about Snitch Tickets, covered
in a section on my Your Ticket page. You will not find anything in the
Union-Trib about them.

Regards,

The editor of highwayrobbery dot net

jgar the jorrible wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
> > Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> >
> > Or, I suppose, San Diego could actually be a localized pocket of blatant
> > RLRers, in which case hell yeah leave the cameras in place. (the odds
> > of that being the case IMHO are vanishingly slim however.)
>
> Actually, Vista is such a localized pocket. But it also has a high
> proportion of elderly and those from non-car-based cultures, and since
> I personally am distracted by the strobes, even though I know they are
> there and what they are doing, I have to wonder if others are even more
> distracted. I have a real philosophical problem with automated
> infractions run by private companies.

Vista has a high proportion of immigrants, this explains a lot:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...m9drivetj.html

Doesn't mention the macho drinking and driving thing, though.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.patentlysilly.com/patent.php?patID=6764083