No Bull, No Fluff, No Smudges
Your news source for
Flagler, Florida and Beyond

Palm Coast Opts to Keep Red-Light Cameras On Despite Legal Cautions and Dearth of Evidence

| November 29, 2011

Palm Coast likes watching you. (© FlaglerLive)

The money is virtually nil. Legal challenges may be ahead. A state law regulating the things may be repealed. And there’s no hard evidence whatsoever–though plenty of anecdotal evidence–that they improve safety at intersections. But on Tuesday, the Palm Coast City Council decided to stick with its 10 spy-and-snap cameras, possibly changing some of their locations and maybe even the vendor who runs them.

Click On:

The council–with only one member, Jason DeLorenzo, in opposition–decided to stick with the spy cameras even though city staff is lukewarm about them and the city attorney on two occasions this morning interceded to remind the council that the city may be on its own should it face potentially costly legal challenges in the future. One of those challenges is a class-action suit filed in October, on constitutional grounds, that aims to have all such traffic fines reimbursed.

“One life is worth more than the $19,000,” City Council member Bill Lewis said, citing the sum total that the city can expect to clear from the cameras in a year, “so keeping a program like this running is very important to the safety of the citizens of this city and is worth the cost and worth the fact that we haven’t lost as many people as we would have lost had these cameras not been there.” Lewis had no evidence that the cameras had saved a life, though officials from the sheriff’s office, City Manager Jim Landon said, are unequivocal about the cam,eras’ benefits.

The cameras’ benefit is unquestionable in one regard: it spares the sheriff’s office, which provides law enforcement for the city, the trouble of policing intersection, a task its deputies don’t cherish. It also helps the sheriff keep manpower down. But the sheriff has no evidence showing how traffic cameras have affected traffic accidents.

“If we decide to proceed,” Mayor Jon Netts said, “if we move some cameras, I’d like some kind of retroactive study, maybe six months in, to see whether the incidence of bad driving has gone back up, and at some point, we’ve been with ATS for what, three years? A little over three years, it might be interesting to sample some of the other vendors.”

When the city first installed spy-and-snap cameras beginning in 2007, the operation skirted state law by flouting a state prohibition against traffic cameras. But it was a cash cow. The cameras generated upwards of $1.65 million in the first four years, more than $1 million of that for city coffers, and $500,000 of it for American Traffic Solutions, the private company that runs the cameras.

Those days of profitability are gone. Annual revenue is projected at $55,000, and actual profit to the city, once administrative costs are subtracted, is projected at $19,000. A state law passed in 2010 ended many local governments’ end-run around state prohibitions by regulating all traffic cameras. Local governments that choose to install them are now required to have a uniform fine of $158, and send $83 of that to the state, leaving $75 for local governments. Palm Coast gets just $30 of that once the ATS share is counted out.

And with the recession and higher gas prices, there’s been less driving, and fewer citations. City council members like to attribute the drop in citations to drivers becoming more aware of the cameras and driving more carefully, which would argue for the effectiveness of cameras as deterrents to risky behavior. But Gail Wadsworth, the clerk of court, dispelled that guess when she told council members that traffic citations have dropped considerably across the board on highways and byways–“an average of 17 percent a year for three years running.” Flagler County used to average 17,000 civil traffic infractions a year. That’s down to 9,600, Wadsworth said.

In the city, spy-and-snap citations have fallen from a monthly average of 965 in 2008 to 520 last year and 341 so far this year. Monthly revenue has fallen from close to $80,000 to less than $5,000 a month over that span.

William Reischmann, the city’s attorney, cautioned: “It’s important for everyone to understand that there are–not the city of Palm Coast, but other local governments–are finding that there are more and more challenges being brought to these challenges, to these citations, in the county court systems. Not necessarily challenging the constitutionality of the Mark Wandall process”–the state law is called the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act–, but challenging evidence, challenging procedure, hearsay objections, things like that. And I think that it’s a fair assumption that if we were to continue this,” the attorney continued, “that may increase our costs, our costs as far as city staff time, ATS expenses and that sort of thing. The other thing. The other thing I think is important to understand is that currently, all of governments in the state of Florida are operating this process under the legislative shield, if you will, the legislative umbrella of the Mark Wendall Act. There is no guarantee that umbrella will continue to exist. It was attacked last year in the legislature, not successfully. There’s already pending draft legislation for this next legislative session to repeal the Mark Wandall Act.” Potentially, that would make the city vulnerable to constitutional challenges.

Landon said that from a business standpoint, not a public-safety standpoint, “if the state repeals their law, I would recommend that we discontinue, because at that point you’re almost asking for someone to file a lawsuit to have the courts determine whether or not locally we can do this, similar with what they did prior to July 2010. My recommendation is we let some other community fight that lawsuit and we see how that goes and we go from there.”

The city manager added: “This isn’t any fun for staff. I mean, if you all said let’s cut it out, we’d probably have some people in code [enforcement] that would be dancing in the aisles if not on their desk.”

Meanwhile, Palm Coast is keeping its cameras on.

46 Responses for “Palm Coast Opts to Keep Red-Light Cameras On Despite Legal Cautions and Dearth of Evidence”

  1. Billy Bob says:

    I’d be all for red light cameras if they didn’t punish those who had the light change from yellow to red at the very last instant, or who don’t see that the “no right turn” arrow has just clicked on, and only fined those who blatantly blast through red lights. The yellow to red tickets must account for the vast majority of the revenue, and it’s not fair. Go to any intersection and stand at a 45 degree and to the lights and you’ll see that the lights are red for a full second in BOTH directions immediately following a yellow to red switch. If a car clears the intersection before the other traffic lanes even get a green light then it shouldn’t be a ticket, but it is.

    The fact is, yellow to red “light runners” are not the ones causing crashes. It’s the distracted, inattentive, drivers that blow through red lights when the cross traffic is already flowing that cause the bad crashes. I suspect that scenario happens infrequently enough that it wouldn’t be worth it to even run the program. So the people driving in our community, most of whom who have never even received any traffic violation, are ticketed unfairly because the camera can show the red light bulb on without any regard to the circumstances. I think that’s a huge reason why these cameras are hated by almost everyone except those who benefit from the taxes I mean fines levied on the citizens.

    The definition of “red light runner” needs to be specifically defined as one who enters an intersection with a red light while cross traffic is already flowing through the intersection. I doubt it will ever happen.

    • Steve Disbrow says:

      The cameras are also giving tickets for “right on red”. Nothing to do with safety.. This is CLEARLY A REVENUE ENHANCEMENT. This City has a terrible reputation for skirting the law on things like water/sewer fees, even when the customer has TURNED OFF THE WATER. They use their police powers to file a lien on your property, to pay for water/sewer which were never used. It is a “connection fee” that is charged monthly and never stops. No other municipality would have the nerve to do such a thing… It is time responsible people are elected to the City Council and remove these unethical practices.

  2. ilikemytazer says:

    citations are down because the cameras only give out “red light ” tickets..

    before the cameras the officer involved in the traffic stop would often give out more than one citation–some for no seat belts,others for improper working safety equipment or bald tires

    think about how many routine stops for a red light probobly resulted in removing someone who was high as a kite or drunk from the roadways—because a living breathing officer witnessed the driver under the influence–a camera cannot do this

  3. Kip Durocher says:

    this is supposedly touted as a “human safety” issue.
    Why all the $$ talk?

    “Money doesen’t talk, it swears.”
    Bob Dylan

  4. Johnny Taxpayer says:

    This issue continues to come up and the city continues to put their head in the sand. There will come a day in the near future where a court (real court as opposed to the kangaroo court that heard the appeals of these violations) will order the City of Palm Coast to reimburse all the fines collected under this program in one of two scenarios.
    At the very least, they will be required to pay back fines collected for the two years the program was in operation prior to the state law that was enacted last year purportedly allowing red light cameras. But it’s entirely possible they could be required to reimburse all fines collected. Did they have the foresight to include language in their contract with ATS to require ATS to reimburse their commission on the fines as well, or will the tax payer get stiffed for that too?

    The city spent money on studies before implementing this program to determine how much money they could make, not to determine whether or not there was a problem at intersections in Palm Coast and if there was, if these cameras actually mitigate that problem. Now we will be forced to pay for their mistakes.

  5. hah says:

    You have to love it when the council hides behind the IDEA of what the cameras MAY accomplish rather than any ACTUAL proof of what the cameras have accomplished. You can’t attribute less driving and citations to these ridiculous cameras when the country is in an economic crap-house and gas continues to get more expensive. The cameras violate rights to privacy, and they could be considered an illegal search of your car, considering sometimes these cameras get shots inside of people’s vehicles.

    Anyone who gets flashed should lawyer up. :)

    • Anonymous says:

      Those cameras are not there to save lives, it s just another way to raise money for palm coast,this is what is in store for good people, to be under a microscope all the time.if u turn right on red and stop for 2 seconds instead of 3, get 160.00 dollars out of your pocket, and give it to these sick people.palmcoast really sucks, can t wait to leave here, good luck creeps

  6. Charles Ericksen, Jr says:

    I’m with you, let’s factor out the reduced travel factor, and the 17% in overall total violation numbers/ year
    , and see just how successful, the cameras were.

  7. bob o says:

    Agree with previous posts. The intent of the cameras was for safety. The concept promoted safer driving. That is happening now and the new concern is the $. If money is the motivation for the cameras, then the city must want reckless driving acts to generate revenue. Two options for the cameras- 1.Safe driving, no money. 2. Reckless driving, revenue maintained.
    What does the city consider successful? Priorities need to be reconsidered.

  8. global 3922 says:

    Cameras are a good thing for all of us, even the idiots who are against. Dont ride the red light & you wont have any problem.

  9. tulip says:

    The Snowbirds are coming back–increase in traffic.

    I do not understand why people are against the cameras–it seems to that the ones that are are the ones who do not care about safety and rules. I even hear people discussing things to put over license plates, and leaving the back panel of a pick down so as to obscure the tag #. What kind of mentality is this? People need to learn to drive correctly. Yellow light means slow down and prepare to stop NOT bombing through it and hoping for the best!

    Cameras also prove who is at fault in an accident. I think anyone who was against the camers who has lost a loved one or friend because of a red light runner hitting them would change their opinion.

    I remember years ago that there was at least one accident a day due to drivers running lights, stop signs, etc. and that was when there were only 30,000 people here. Now we have a much larger population and lots of oversized trucks and and huge vehicles that weren’t around back then, nor texting and cell phones. If a regular size car or smaller gets hit by one of those running a light, it’s almost sure death to the driver of the smaller vehicle.

    Even though there are still imbeciles running lights out there running lights, the total is way down BECAUSE of the cameras, and it’s actually a pleasure driving around PC now whereas before, when you came to an intersection you looked left and right twice before proceeding cause sure enough there would be a violater.

  10. Popo3984 says:

    First off they are not spy cameras they are for safety so let’s get past that amit govement rhetoric first second they have had these cameras up north for over 20 years and it’s proven to save lives so get over it they are here to stay

  11. roco says:

    I’m all for keeping the cameras.. I think they cause drivers to think twice before blowing a red light.. The ones opposed are those who have been caught.. KEEP THEM and install more where needed.

  12. LOL says:

    Proven? lol. Name 1 accident/incident/event in which these cameras saved a life, caught a criminal, or generally made a difference at all.

    The article even states there is NO statistical information that can confirm these cameras have “kept people safe.”

    To quote the article:

    “It also helps the sheriff keep manpower down. But the sheriff has no evidence showing how traffic cameras have affected traffic accidents.”

    You can generalize your point, Popo, but the fact is there is nothing backing the actual USEFULNESS of these cameras, aside from the vague ideas of “public safety.” When it comes down to it, the reason is plain and simple. “Mo’ money, Mo’ Money, Mo’ Money.” ;D

  13. johnc says:

    Keep the camera’s I am sick and tired of being cut off when proceeding through an intersection when the light is green and some idiot has to run the light on the other side. It seems like the state of florida wants the $$$ Palm coast does not get as much as it use to. Also I remember that running a red light is breaking the LAW!!!!!!! You break the law you get punished. People have to take responsiblity for their actions!! Groups like the ACLU are screwing this country royally wait and see.

  14. Bob C says:

    I have found myself on numerous occasions in fear of getting a camera light citation coming to a quick stop as soon the light turns yellow as I do not know how short is the yellow light. I condsider my self a safe driver with no accidents or tickets and previous to these cameras I would judge the timimg of the yellow light and the traffic in and around the intersection to determine if I had enough time to safely make it through the intersection with out running a red light. But now in fear of a citation I can not afford, I tend to hits the breaks just to make sure.

    This was also realized when I started using the new Progressive Insurance “Snapshot “device to lower my insurance costs. The Snapshot tracks each driving trip and I was able to confirm as each time I came to a quick stop at a changing traffic light the tracking website noted a “Hard Breaking” during the trip. A hard breaking acording the the website is slowing 7 mph in a second. I have checked every time and the only time I received a hard breaking was on a day I stopped short for a yellow light. The website notes the time of your trip and speed during the course of your trip and I was always going the speed limit at the time of these hard breaks. I have found myself slowing at every light with a camera to prevent these hard breaks and on more than one occasion was informed by the person driving behind me of their annoyance at my slower speed. I am not getting any citations but also fear getting rear-ended by another driver.

    So many people quote statistics including city officials and people here on this site but I have yet to see one person back up their quotes with reports or studies. I am not saying their quotes are incorrect but I would like to read the reports or studies if they are making a statement as a fact.

    Tulip, please let me know where you are quoting your information from as to at least one accident per day due to drivers running light, stop signs, etc.

    Popo3984 – do you have any place of reference for your statement they have been around for “20 years” and they have PROVEN to save lives?

    Just asking…………….

    Personally I think the city is doing this to generate revenue and this is only up for discussion to judge the pros and cons of how much money they are bringing in compared to the risk of a law suit. If this was solely on safety concerns and there was difinitive proof that these worked and prevented accidents the discussion should be why don’t we have one at every traffic light.

    • Nancy N. says:

      I totally agree with Bob…I hate these cameras with a passion because I’m terrified of getting a ticket from them that I cannot afford and so I find myself hard braking when a light turns yellow at the last minute. I am scared I’m going to get rear-ended by someone who doesn’t stop when I do.

      I am 40 years old and have a perfect driving record…why am I having to be placing myself at risk of injury every time I drive through one of these intersection to avoid a ticket? It’s ridiculous!

  15. Kendall says:

    Prior to the cameras the intersection of Belle Terre and the entrance to Cypress Knoll/Town Center was the scene of numerous horrible accidents that resulted in injury and I believe the death of a small child about 5 or 6 years ago.

    Since the cameras have been installed I have not heard of any major accidents there and I have only seen a handful rear end accidents and they have been in the straight lanes, not the right turn lanes or in the left turn lane to turn into Cypress Knoll so not monitored by a camera.

    That intersection has several pedestrians walking over to Publix as well. I believe the knowledge of the cameras has probably significantly reduced the risk of pedestrians getting hit by people turning on red into Cypress Knoll without stopping. And I will admit it, prior to the cameras I rarely stopped to turn right into the neighborhood. I rolled through it. But my habits have changed for the better. Not just at that intersection, but everyplace I drive. And I didn’t have to get a ticket for those results. In fact I never received one.

    They have made a difference- we can’t guess how many lives were saved and how many injuries never occurred. And even if we could, how do you put a price or value on that? As Mr. Lewis said, one life saved is priceless. One life not destroyed by catastrophic injury is priceless. One family kept intact is priceless. One child not losing a parent is priceless. And parents not losing a child is priceless.

    It’s stunning to see the arguments against efforts to keep people safe.

  16. PJ says:

    Here is a new Council person and he votes to discontinue the (Good job DeLorenzo). The resst of them are useless as usual. Get rid of the cameras the ruin the quality of life.

    If the city is really loooking to save lives you can set the current traffic lights with a safety hold yellow light.

    This works as it holds the light yellow until the speeding car or the intersection is clear. You want to save lives install them not a camera to intimedate us residents.

    Just another do noting city council, it won’t be long before you all are working for Landon.

    Landon already know who is going to get that $35 Million garbage contract all you council members need to do is wait for Mr. Landon’s wink before your vote.

    Let’s see what DeLorenzo and the other new member can do before they become Landonized…………………..

    • Oneofthe10%whovoted says:

      PJ, DeLorenzo voted with Landon. Not following your post.

      Like your idea about the yellow safety light. Why don’t you run for council?

  17. guyaboveme says:

    Kendall: “And I will admit it, prior to the cameras I rarely stopped to turn right into the neighborhood. I rolled through it. But my habits have changed for the better. Not just at that intersection, but everyplace I drive.”

    The fact that you needed a threat in some form to rehabilitate your driving is both ridiculous and hilarious. Drivers like you are the reason these things are up, I guess.

    Once again, despite all the talk of “Keeping people safe is priceless” and “saving a family is priceless”, Not one person can actually site any statistical information that proves these cameras actually keep us safer or that they’re doing little more than sucking up money.

    If someone is flying down the road and they’re approaching a camera light, the threat of a camera doesn’t improve a car’s brake pads, the driver’s intelligence, or the drivers ability. Regardless of all the BS people are flinging around with “how important safety is”, no one can actually prove their usefulness beyond ticketing people without an officer present and generating revenue based upon the POTENTIAL danger of people running red lights.

    The cameras probably will not come down, though. This town is motivated by two things: Fear and Profit. They fear change, they fear lack of predictability, they fear “order” being taken out of their hands.

    All the profit is generated from these same people passing that fear on to the public. One man’s fear is another man’s dollar. It’s pretty simple.

  18. Revfrank Currier via Facebook says:

    stupid is as stupid does

  19. Anonymous says:

    The Red Light cameras are useless I have seen many times the camera bye Perkins snap shots and no one is there and they are constantly adjusting it ! My problem is if you are not the driver but the owner of the car you get a ticket . They also have not prevented accidents they have caused allot of rear- end accidents, because of people slamming on the breaks in fear of getting a ticket ! The bigger issue that people need to wake up is that they are taking away more and more of our rights and privacy ! wake up people ! Instead of putting up read light camera’s and wasting money they should focus on the bigger issues vacant houses, no jobs, and the pill problems. I also read that someone thinks they help identify who was at fault in an accident that is not true (or so they say) the camera on takes pictures of a car if it runs a red light , it does not record in real time !

  20. John Boy says:

    Goldman Sachs is the owne of the Arizona company behind the traffic control cameras. The City and State should not be involved with one of the corporations that have tanked the US ecomony.

  21. tulip says:

    For BOB C. The accidents I am talking about occurred from 1997 when I moved here and for a few years after, so I’m talking 14 years. It was rare when I was out and about there wasn’t an accident somewhere in my vicinity and elsewhere. I can’t prove it obviously, but it was that way. I was so glad when more traffic lights went in—that helped a lot and when the cameras went in I really noticed a big difference.

    I’m sick of people saying we’re losing our privacy—there are cameras everywhere for everything and if someone doesn’t want their “privace invaded”—stay home.

    KENDALL–I agree with your ist post totally, especially the part about some people’s resistance to safety.

  22. DP says:

    If you read the article it clearly states, there’s no hard evidence whatsoever that shows these cameras have saved a life or prevented an accident. Spy cameras come on! People have really forgotten what they were taught many years ago when they obtained the driver license. When approaching an intersection that has a long green light, be prepared to stop as it may be changing to yellow soon. If you run the “RED” light you should be ticketed you broke a law. Regardless of the cameras or not, we will still have risky drivers out there. Jason DeLorenzo thanks, you got my vote in the election, and maybe I can join you on the commission next year? It’s time for a change in government and I support a younger commission. Jim Landon stop playing flipper whose side are you really on???? Watch out your job maybe on the “LINE”.

  23. Alison says:

    I still see people running red lights and stop signs. The people of Palm Coast think stop signs are optional. Especially when they are in a shopping center.

    Good luck if you are a pedestrian or a bicyclist. I’ve been on a bike and had some run drive along side of me and lay into the horn. I was where I was supposed to be. Obeying the laws of the road. Another time I was with a friend and someone tried to run her down on while she was on her bicycle coming out from the Target shopping center. The people here have no idea what the laws of the road are and think of they can fit their vehicle on it then they should be able to drive there.

    My belief is that they installed the cameras thinking they would get easy money. The cost of the equipment and support and maintenance of it is probably far more than what they take in. Perhaps they should spend money on driver education. I’ve seen some of these high school students not know their right from their left. Come on… Not that difficult

  24. more rules are't the answer says:

    if the people from new york and new jersey knew how to drive – we wouldn’t need the cameras.

  25. johnc says:

    Another to thing to consider is that Insurance companies set rates in cities based on accidents. If there are less accidents the better rating the city gets. Although our insurance continues to go up due to the fraud being committed on PIP claims, and staged accidents.
    Move the cameras, if people can’t stop for a red light screw them and give them a ticket!! It’s the LAW!!!!!
    Hey PJ, people will blow throw the yellow light as it were a green light.

  26. Billy Bob says:

    From the 2011 Florida Drivers Handbook:

    Florida Drivers Handbook – 2011 Section 6.1 Traffic Signals

    “Traffic signals are placed at intersections to keep traffic moving and to avoid a crash […]

    Stop if you can. The light will soon be red.”

    So the problem is red light cameras do not factor in the “if you can” part.

    Moreover, as previously explained at the moment the light switches from yellow to red the cross traffic has NOT been given a green light. It may have switched at the same time back in 1940 but not anymore. Go look at any intersection and be amazed! ALL directions have a red light immediately after a yellow to red light.This gives the yellow light cars time to clear the intersection. So why should they be ticketed?

    Finally, while red light cameras may give a perception of safety, and that’s fine, the reality is (and this has been shown to be the case all over the country, look it up) red light cameras are primarily revenue sources for city and state governments.

    Make your mind up based on the facts, not on how seeing someone drive through a yellow light that turns red makes you feel. If it were a true traffic safety issues the handbook would state “Yellow: You MUST come to a complete stop before the light turns red.” It doesn’t say that, because it’s not actually a problem. Anybody who thinks red light runner crashes are caused by people going through a late yellow light simply doesn’t properly understand traffic flow and traffic signals.

  27. Billy Bob says:

    Here are two youtube videos to illustrate:

    1) Yellow to red. By law, this is NOT running a red light people!

    Red light camera WOULD have ticketed the driver of the truck, however there is NO WAY he could have stopped that heavy truck and in fact by the wording of the law what he did was NOT illegal. “Stop if you can”. He couldn’t.

    PLEASE NOTE the cross traffic had not even begun moving. His yellow to red did not impede the flow of traffic or cause anyone any issues other than the person filming the video. Note how disliked the video was because of the incorrect “running a red light” interpretation by the person filming.

    2) Red light runner.

    THIS person should absolutely be ticked. THIS is exactly what running a red light is. THIS is what happens when you run a red light while cross traffic is flowing. Note that the light is red the entire time of the video, this is not a yellow to red situation.

    I hope this helps people understand the facts and why red light cameras truly are more about revenue than about safety.

  28. w.ryan says:

    The simplest way to prevent collisions is to increase the amount of time during the all stop period of the sequence with the lights. Every ones judgements differ and so does response. It’s simply about the cash!!!

  29. in palm coast says:

    I SOOOOO agree with Billy Bob as I had the situation of trying to stop for the light (which would have been UNSAFE) or going thru it. I chose to continue on. The big question is that if these types of cases come before the court, is there a way that the court can see video and all relevent information to see if the driver ran the light or made a judgement call to avoid possibly injuring someone? What happened to having a cop witness the offense before a citation can be issued? Isn’t that what state law says?

    • Ben Dover says:

      Yes there is , but its a kangaroo court , and they tell you to stop complaining and pay up and oh just for trying to defend your rights they tack on 40 more bucks ……….move along little doggie

    • Nancy N. says:

      You’re not being issued a “traffic ticket moving violation” by the traffic cameras but a “code enforcement” ticket that says you violated city code…that’s how they get around not having a police officer witness it. It’s why they can only fine you and not put points on your driver’s license, etc.

  30. hahahahaha says:

    if the great minds at palm coast’s city hall say “its not about the money” then donate 100% of their part to a local charity.

  31. palmcoaster says:

    Magistrate Charles Cino bias against a woman driver versus a male driver in court with same issue and forms completed. So ladies be aware of prejudice against us, if we end up in traffic court. This traffic magistrate should be removed and Mrs Paris fine refunded just so justice prevails.

  32. ann paris says:

    Talk about a kangaroo court! Here is an article about me in traffic court yesterday. I was penalized for a ticket when I was not driving my car–I was at work at the time of the ticket! Because I did not know which of my 5 family members it was, I was slapped with a late fee even though I filled out the affidavit that I was not driving. There was another man after me at court with the same scenario. I was required to pay the original $158 and he was excused–scott free! Was it because I was a woman? Or couldn’t afford a lawyer? Don’t know–but somebody is making $$ and it isn’t me! Here’s the article:
    Red light cameras do NOT make us safer!!

  33. palmcoaster says:

    Dear Ann I think your case is for a discrimination complain lawsuit in base of gender. Regarding the bias of this magistrate.

  34. palmcoaster says:

    Palm Coast was sued in 2009 as part of a class-action lawsuit after a motorist there was cited for turning right on red without stopping. The city and attorney Jason Weisser have been discussing a settlement…? What about the lady that was discriminated and heavily fined in her Court appearence for same violation, as a prior driver made and while He was let go and pardoned the fine?

  35. Anonymous says:

    As drivers wise up and drive cautiously in the vampire town of Palm Coast, red light tickets will diminish to almost nothing.
    This will net the avaricious city of Palm Coast almost nothing for all their illegal spy camera installations.

    Spy cameras antagonize shoppers and send them to other cities to shop.

  36. Chris petruzzelli says:

    These lights are out of control! Can’t wait to get out of this town! How about stop trying to screw the residents of the community with your light system. They change so rapidly! And they change quickly when one car come to an opposing stop??? These should not be legal… But I guess we the sheep will just sit back and allow the system to just keep screwing us, and sucking us dry (money) from every angel. When will people start saying enough!!!

  37. Lordrobot says:

    To me it is shocking that you would allow these local politicians to treat the city like some kind of fema camp or worse a pen of rats that serves the financial whims of these gov employees. The shield for this ordinance is

    It basically requires counties and municipalities to enact ordinances if they wish to use the photo enforcement cameras. But of course Palm Coast has gone much further and introduced spy cameras which don’t enforce anything but photograph drivers. The public doesn’t even know how the data is being used and there are no “legal notices” posted to warn that the cameras are taking their pictures as well as passenger pictures.

    As for the stop lights. You need to look at your ordinance. This is supposedly being treated like a parking ticket so the right on red tickets are probably unenforceable and unconstitutional since it requires a judgment call by somebody reviewing the film. Therein is the problem. A stop no matter how brief is still a stop. Some who have gotten tickets were told they had to stop for 3 seconds. That must be written in the law or it is unenforceable. Further, it would seem beyond a simple red light ticket and into the area of moving violation so the ordinance would probably be unconstitutional on its face since it violates due process. With a parking ticket they can ticket the car owner but in a moving violation they can only charge the driver not the car. A stoplight violation is actually a moving violation too so my take is that it is all unconstitutional.

    But what really surprises me about Palm Coast is how the citizens would allow the endless stream of Palm Coast rules, many of which are unconstitutional to inflict so much misery on their neighbors. It is truly a horrible little hamlet with very little freedom, hardly any businesses, endless expansion of gov that resembles the middle section of your overpaid and useless mayor. It is a city that only serves the interest of gov and gov employes. Citizens are nothing more than fresh mullet served on a fork to your mayor , Mr. Mussolini.

  38. Mike Prairie says:

    I will never do business in Palm Coast again. We were trying to find the entrance way to Kohls department store and not running a red light. Palm Coast businesses will never never receive a dime from me.

    • Man With A Plan says:

      Ticket clinic can beat these for $80 guaranteed. It’s a racket but if we starve the crooks we win at any cost. I would rather flush $400 down the toilet vs paying the City to screw me. But as long as people keep these crooks in office it will continue to drain the city. Good luck selling your house once potential buyers read about all the ways Palm Coast screws it’s residents.

  39. Wayne says:

    Voters are watching the situation closely, Palm Coast is a retirement area older people are very nervous about getting fined and losing their license so they are driving with less confidence going through intersections, driving at slower than normal or required speeds trapping vehicles behind them crossing the intersection to get caught in changing signals from green to red. They drive very slow about three quarters the way through then speeding up at the end, but in that process trapping other drivers behind them in the intersection during light changing. Another thing that I noticed the yellow caution light just about blinks when you go through some intersections (how can the city and contractors not know this?), and seems that the cameras have been mostly installed around shopping areas. Intelligent people see these things and remember at election time. Congratulations to the city staff you have found another way to put pressure on normal law abiding citizens in a world already busting at the seams, families trying to make ends meet, veterans returning from years of war, a government local state and federal, and private sector banks, insurance companies in their never ending quest to get more money from the American Family. Another thing intelligent people see is that the real threat to safety is the interstate I 95 goes unchecked and is nicked named “NASCAR Interstate”. My employment takes me all over Florida, I use to see a flipped over car occasionally, but now I see on average at least two per trip times twice a week. Put your money where the real hazard is. Maybe the city does not get any money from the interstate enforcement, but the problem is growing and is not gone unnoticed by voters. Thanks

Leave a Reply

FlaglerLive's forum, as noted in our comment policy, is for debate and conversation that adds light and perspective to articles. Please be courteous, don't attack fellow-commenters or make personal attacks against individuals in stories, and try to stick to the subject. All comments are moderated.

Read FlaglerLive's Comment Policy | Subscribe to the Comment Feed rss flaglerlive comment feed rss

More stories on FlaglerLive

FlaglerLive Email Alerts

Enter your email address to get alerts.


suppert flaglerlive flagler live palm coast flagler county news pierre tristam florida
fcir florida center for investigative reporting

Recent Comments

FlaglerLive is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization | P.O. Box 254263, Palm Coast, FL 32135 | Contact the Editor by email | (386) 586-0257 | Sitemap | Log in