Open Letter to the Mayor of Kansas City regarding Red Light Cameras
This is the first in a series of open letters to Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser on behalf of the Missouri Citizens who support The Liberty Restoration Project.
We, The Liberty Restoration Project, have been public in our opposition to the red light photo-enforcement systems since January of 2009. We hold the belief that photo-enforcement systems are installed and implemented in conflict with Missouri State Law and we support the proposed state legislation, which would specifically ban the use of any photo enforcement against citizens of Missouri or citizens of any other state who operate vehicles in Missouri. We believe these systems encourage corruption, fuel and promote negative attitudes towards government and law enforcement, and abuse the rights of citizens. We also stand firmly on the belief that photo enforcement systems are not implemented for safety, but for a revenue source through force and coercion. While we recognize photo-enforcement systems are not unique to Kansas City in the state of Missouri, our organization is based in and receives the most support from the Kansas City area and its surrounding communities and, therefore, we ask you, Mayor Funkhouser, to publicly respond to the following:
1. There are several proven actions that can be implemented for little or no cost at all that reduce red light running and improve the safety of intersections.
Extending yellow light times by a minimum of 1 second
Adding a brief “all red” signal in the cycle stopping traffic in all directions
Increasing the size of stoplights
Clearing unnecessary obstructions that affect a driver’s view of either stoplights or traffic
Synchronizing stoplights to allow a more fluid flow of traffic and adjusting timing to allow sufficient time for vehicles making left turns
Painting chevrons on the surface of the road leading into intersections, which visually tricks drivers into slowing down and leaving larger gaps between vehicles
Why were none of these actions undertaken by the city before the implementation of the photo enforcement systems?
2. In reference to the intersections on 71 Highway, history has shown these intersections are not only dangerous for vehicles but also for pedestrians. A choice was made during the design/construction of this highway to include the three intersections instead of overpasses with pedestrian walkways. These three intersections are the primary source of traffic congestion and stoppages, which unfortunately promotes frustration and unsafe driving behaviors as drivers attempt to avoid stopping. Traffic congestion and stoppages decrease the air quality of the urban core as drivers sit through multiple stoplight cycles at each intersection during their commute.
Do you, Mayor Funkhouser, publicly support the decision that was made during the construction of 71 Highway to include stoplights at 55th St., 59th St. and Gregory Blvd?
Would you, Mayor Funkhouser, support changing the aforementioned intersections to overpasses?
3. The selection of intersections for photo-enforcement is quite suspect. Nearly every intersection has a higher complexity of infrastructure and design than most standard intersections including highway on and off ramps, is part of a highly traveled commuter router or both, and in the case of 71 and 152 Highways, higher rates of speed approaching the stoplights. There is notably a lack of photo-enforced intersections in neighborhoods of higher affluence, i.e. Ward Parkway, Brookside Boulevard, Briarcliff or 64th Street north of the river.
Do you, Mayor Funkhouser, agree with our opinion that the photo-enforced intersections appear to be purposefully placed in fundamentally flawed intersections and in areas of lesser affluence to increase the volume of tickets while reducing the amount of challenges in court?
4. We have seen in the past few months of 2010, statistics published and quoted by city officials regarding the perceived increase in safety since the implementation of the photo-enforcement systems. However, no or very little data accompanies those statistics regarding how the data was collected, analyzed and how it was compared. For example, stating that a 20% drop in accidents occurred at a certain intersection because accident data for 2008 was 5 accidents and in 2009 was 4 accidents is not a statistically sound or accurate representation of what actually took place over those two years. What was the definition of an accident? Did the definition change between 2008 and 2009? What was the traffic volume? What is the ratio of accidents to volume of traffic? Were there extenuating circumstances in either year such as construction, weather or other factors that changed normal operating circumstances of these intersections? Who collected the data? How was the data collected? If in 2008, 200,000 vehicles passed through the intersection with only 5 accidents while in 2009 traffic was reduced and 100,000 vehicles passed through with 4 accidents, the 20% improvement goes away. You see Mayor Funkhouser, just a simple comparison of one year to another does not provide an accurate picture of whether or not photo enforcement systems are actually working.
In an effort to achieve more transparency and in keeping with the trust placed in your elected leadership by the citizens and voters of Kansas City to not mislead or misrepresent them, will you, Mayor Funkhouser publicly release the details of how and by whom the data was collected for the statistics city officials and area media outlets are using?
5. The most recently released monetary statistics state that the city has collected over $5 million dollars from citations mailed to homes of individuals listed as the owner of a vehicle that was photographed despite the fact there in no proof the owner was operating the vehicle. City officials have claimed that these systems are installed for “safety” purposes only. During testimony on March 17 of 2010 in the Missouri Senate Transportation Committee, individuals testifying in favor of photo enforcement on numerous times indicated that these systems both cost more to lease and operate than hiring human officers and also admitted the removal of such systems would cost municipalities large amounts of revenue. We at the Liberty Restoration Project and the citizens we represent believe that by leasing the camera systems from a private company encourages both the leaser and the lessee to engage in corrupt behavior to maintain the systems.
Mayor Funkhouser, if Kansas City’s one and only intention is safety, then why are the photo- enforcement systems leased from a company in Arizona and not purchased? If the intention is only safety, we feel that 100%of the profits collected from these systems should be donated to charities in the communities where the photo-enforced intersections are located. Could you share specifically what the profits from photo enforcement are used to fund?
6. Through our own observation of photo-enforced intersections, citizen testimony and actions taken by Kansas City to temporarily shut down photo enforced intersections due to errors, we have concluded the accuracy and reliability of the leased photo enforcement systems is not consistent with how they are being represented to the citizens of Kansas City by city officials and most media outlets. In addition to the accuracy concerns, we have greater concerns regarding the privacy policies of both the company in Arizona that operates the cameras and the company in Ohio that collects the money from citations. Kansas City is essentially selling the personal information of Missouri citizens for a profit to out of state companies.
What are the privacy policies for American Traffic Solutions and the collection agency in Ohio?
What are these companies authorized to do with the personal information provided to them?
Do these companies run background checks before hiring their employees?
It is our belief that citizens in both Kansas City and Missouri have not been provided with sufficient information to make an informed decision on the issue of photo-enforcement. In our research we have found that when photo-enforcement systems are put to a popular vote, they are defeated every time. In response to the concerns we have raised in this letter, we are requesting an immediate meeting to gain answers to our questions. As a matter of transparency, and public disclosure, we will record the meeting, in order to provide the citizens of Kansas City, Missouri and neighboring states with a more complete analysis on the issue of photo-enforcement. Such due diligence is both necessary, and required, in order provide the best service, while protecting civil liberties, for our citizenry.
In defense of the principles our Republic was founded upon,
The Liberty Restoration Project
P.O. Box 413953
Kansas City, MO 64141
816-213-1923
