From December 30th 2009 to January 1st 2010 the city of Baytown released several press releases on their rejection of our petition to put the issue of red light cameras on the ballot to give the people a vote on this controversial and abusive program. The crux of their argument for rejecting the petition is that they declared it to be an untimely referendum instead of an initiative petition since it sought to repeal an existing ordinance and any petition seeking to repeal or modify a current ordinance needs to be filed within 20 days of the ordinance passing. Ms Jett  said in her statement to the Baytown Sun;

 

 

Our position was, and continues to be, that the city is selectively applying the charter to petitions they view as favorable and those they view as unfavorable. Not based on following the law of the city, as Ms Jett claims, but on the politics of the city officials. In November 2006 the city of Baytown allowed a petition labeled as an “initiative ordinance” to ban smoking in Baytown on the ballot. This ordinance repealed the previous smoking ordinance on the books for years, well over the 20 day deadline Ms Jett says the city has “long established” as the deadline. In fact the city’s own website in a brochure on the smoking ordinance says;

 

“Voters in
Baytown could either vote to approve or deny
the initiative ordinance which would repeal the
current smoking ordinance”

 

How is it that the city previously passed an initiative ordinance that would repeal a standing ordinance on the books for far more than 20 days but now selectively rejects our petition (which was structured on the previous smoking ban initiative) as an untimely referendum? The city viewed the smoking ban as favorable while they view the red light camera initiative as unfavorable. In fact, the same city attorney, Ignacio Ramirez, who declared our petition to be invalid worked closely on the language of the smoking ban initiative. Clearly, by any reasonable review of the facts, the city is not applying the law equally in these cases. If the city truly stands behind Ms Jett’s statements they would seek to reverse the smoking ban ordinance as it was an untimely filed referendum and would investigate what Ms Jett characterized a “misappropriation of public funds” by spending public funds to put an untimely filed referendum on the ballot in November 2006.

 

Baytown Red Light Camera Coalition, a grassroots organization that seeks to ban the red light cameras in Baytown, hopes that ultimately the city will decide to be guided by the will of the people. We gathered sufficient signatures to demand a vote on this issue. Recently, in College Station the council voted to remove the red light cameras after a vote on the cameras showed the will of the people was to remove them. Our hope is that the city council will follow the lead of College Station’s council to ultimately execute the will of the people. We ask that concerned individuals contact the Baytown city council and the mayor to express their desire to have a vote.

 

The city has violated numerous sections of the the transportation code governing red light cameras including implementing illegally short yellow lights, improper violation notices and improper signage. The city still refuses to hold themselves accountable for these violations and with almost $3 million in collected fines under the program we believe the city will continue to block our efforts by any means necessary, legal or not. More information can be found at our website www.saferbaytown.com or contact Byron Schirmbeck at 281-728-7220 for a statement or interview.