Published: Saturday, January 21, 2012
Guest commentary / Red-light cameras
Haugen's obstruction leaves voters little choice
Nobody hates our initiatives more than Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen (D-Camano Island). She's the state Senate's transportation chair and she's constantly whining about our 1999 $30 car tab initiative. (Hypocrisy alert: she voted for the bill to repeal the motor vehicle excise tax after I-695 was overturned by the courts.)
Wouldn't it have been better for "leaders" like her, way back before that initiative, to have recognized the widespread public disgust with outrageously expensive car tab taxes and done something legislatively meaningful about it? If they had, there wouldn't have been an Initiative 695 (and I doubt I would have seen the need to become a political activist).
So what exactly is Haugen waiting for when it comes to seriously responding to the public's overwhelming rejection of those obnoxious automatic ticketing cameras? Recent local initiatives in very liberal communities like Mukilteo and Bellingham have rejected them with 71 percent and 68 percent votes. And very conservative communities like Monroe and Longview said no with 68 percent and 59 percent votes. Middle of the road Redmond didn't even wait for a public vote -- the submission of a record number of voter signatures convinced the mayor and city council to abandon the program.
Haugen created this monstrosity in 2005. With all these recent public votes against her Frankenstein, what's her response? "No, no second thoughts. I don't think I opened up Pandora's Box," Haugen told The Herald.
Clueless, truly clueless.
Will she give other communities the opportunity to choose whether to keep the cameras or not? From The Herald: "Haugen said she'd fight against … requiring a vote before cameras can be used. 'I don't agree with that,' she said."
Initiatives are necessary when politicians take the ostrich approach, sticking their head in the sand hoping that ignoring the problem will make it go away. It doesn't work that way (RE: Initiative 695).
The Herald has done a stellar job exposing the corruption this program breeds. The red-light camera company executives who impersonate local citizens to promote their product, the police officers who prostitute themselves to maintain the cameras' cash flow, and the city councils that can't objectively review the cameras' failure because (when faced with internal emails) they've admitted they're hooked on the money.
And so how has Haugen reacted to these revelations and disclosures? "When told a preponderance of studies reviewed by The Herald didn't reach those same conclusions, Haugen said: 'I've seen your stuff, and I don't necessarily agree with it.'" Haugen is obviously someone who doesn't let facts get in the way of her corrupt enterprise.
The Herald Editorial Board opines that it's not a good enough justification to end the program because the citizens hate it. I disagree. Government must retain "the consent of the governed." This program doesn't have it. And there are numerous reasons why.
Liberals hate the program because the government is giving police powers to huge, out-of-state corporations like Goldman Sachs in order to generate profits. Conservatives hate the program because basic civil liberties and constitutional rights like due process are violated. And most obscene of all is the perverse incentive the program creates: the more lawbreakers there are, the more money they get, making corruption inevitable.
Politicians like Haugen should represent the citizenry, not the profiteers. Of course the city politicians and red-light camera companies like automatic ticketing cameras -- they get all the money from them. It's not "free enterprise" as Haugen claims; it's taxation-through-citation, just another way for politicians to pick the pockets of the people.
For years, Haugen has gone out of her way to block any meaningful camera-limiting legislation from consideration. Whether the bills are pushed by Democrats or Republicans, Haugen has prevented even allowing hearings on them. It is a one-politician filibuster. It is all about her own hubris and arrogance and greed.
For government, cameras are like crack cocaine -- once they get hooked, they can't get off. Looks like Haugen is a street cop who prefers to look the other way as long as she gets her cut.
The next time Mary Margaret Haugen whines about initiatives, she should look in the mirror to see why they're necessary.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Tim Eyman (425-493-9127, www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com) is a longtime initiative activist who has filed an initiative called "Let The People Decide on Red Light Cameras."
Wouldn't it have been better for "leaders" like her, way back before that initiative, to have recognized the widespread public disgust with outrageously expensive car tab taxes and done something legislatively meaningful about it? If they had, there wouldn't have been an Initiative 695 (and I doubt I would have seen the need to become a political activist).
So what exactly is Haugen waiting for when it comes to seriously responding to the public's overwhelming rejection of those obnoxious automatic ticketing cameras? Recent local initiatives in very liberal communities like Mukilteo and Bellingham have rejected them with 71 percent and 68 percent votes. And very conservative communities like Monroe and Longview said no with 68 percent and 59 percent votes. Middle of the road Redmond didn't even wait for a public vote -- the submission of a record number of voter signatures convinced the mayor and city council to abandon the program.
Haugen created this monstrosity in 2005. With all these recent public votes against her Frankenstein, what's her response? "No, no second thoughts. I don't think I opened up Pandora's Box," Haugen told The Herald.
Clueless, truly clueless.
Will she give other communities the opportunity to choose whether to keep the cameras or not? From The Herald: "Haugen said she'd fight against … requiring a vote before cameras can be used. 'I don't agree with that,' she said."
Initiatives are necessary when politicians take the ostrich approach, sticking their head in the sand hoping that ignoring the problem will make it go away. It doesn't work that way (RE: Initiative 695).
The Herald has done a stellar job exposing the corruption this program breeds. The red-light camera company executives who impersonate local citizens to promote their product, the police officers who prostitute themselves to maintain the cameras' cash flow, and the city councils that can't objectively review the cameras' failure because (when faced with internal emails) they've admitted they're hooked on the money.
And so how has Haugen reacted to these revelations and disclosures? "When told a preponderance of studies reviewed by The Herald didn't reach those same conclusions, Haugen said: 'I've seen your stuff, and I don't necessarily agree with it.'" Haugen is obviously someone who doesn't let facts get in the way of her corrupt enterprise.
The Herald Editorial Board opines that it's not a good enough justification to end the program because the citizens hate it. I disagree. Government must retain "the consent of the governed." This program doesn't have it. And there are numerous reasons why.
Liberals hate the program because the government is giving police powers to huge, out-of-state corporations like Goldman Sachs in order to generate profits. Conservatives hate the program because basic civil liberties and constitutional rights like due process are violated. And most obscene of all is the perverse incentive the program creates: the more lawbreakers there are, the more money they get, making corruption inevitable.
Politicians like Haugen should represent the citizenry, not the profiteers. Of course the city politicians and red-light camera companies like automatic ticketing cameras -- they get all the money from them. It's not "free enterprise" as Haugen claims; it's taxation-through-citation, just another way for politicians to pick the pockets of the people.
For years, Haugen has gone out of her way to block any meaningful camera-limiting legislation from consideration. Whether the bills are pushed by Democrats or Republicans, Haugen has prevented even allowing hearings on them. It is a one-politician filibuster. It is all about her own hubris and arrogance and greed.
For government, cameras are like crack cocaine -- once they get hooked, they can't get off. Looks like Haugen is a street cop who prefers to look the other way as long as she gets her cut.
The next time Mary Margaret Haugen whines about initiatives, she should look in the mirror to see why they're necessary.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Tim Eyman (425-493-9127, www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com) is a longtime initiative activist who has filed an initiative called "Let The People Decide on Red Light Cameras."
Comments
(