Washington – In the Obama Administration’s continued effort to stimulate community development and job growth, U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan today awarded $620 million to over 500 communities across the country through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). To view the list the full list of grantees receiving funding under this program, visit HUD’s Recovery Act website. Tennessee will receive over $13 million (see attached list).

The Recovery Act made available a total of $1 billion through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. On July 16th, HUD announced the first round of grants under this program to nearly 700 communities, totaling $360 million. With today’s announcement, all $1 billion are now in the hands of communities, working to create jobs and revitalize neighborhoods.

“Today, I am proud to announce that HUD has moved quickly to obligate more than $10 billion in Recovery Act funds,” said Donovan. “Nearly three quarters of our Recovery Act funds are now available to communities across the country and are being put to work creating jobs, making homes more energy efficient, and strengthening neighborhoods.”

CDBG enables state and local governments to undertake a wide range of activities intended to create suitable living environments, provide affordable housing and create economic opportunities. Under the Recovery Act, recipients give priority to prudent and responsible projects for which contracts through a bidding process within 120 days of the grant agreement.

HUD is committed to implementing Recovery Act investments swiftly and effectively, with the goal of generating tens of thousands of jobs and helping the families and communities hardest hit by the economic crisis. The Recovery Act includes $13.61 billion for projects and programs administered by HUD, most of which is funneled through existing programs, such as the Community Development Block Grant program. Nearly 75 percent of that funding was allocated to state and local recipients only eight days after President Obama signed the Act into law. Now, just over six months later, HUD has obligated, or awarded, nearly 75 percent of that funding to states and communities across the country. $10 billion out of $13.6 billion is now in the hands of grantees, available for spending.

President Obama directed all Recovery Act funding to be spent responsibly and in a transparent manner in order to provide a necessary economic boost, create jobs, and strengthen America’s middle class. In a letter to CDBG recipients of Recovery Act funds, Donovan wrote, “In accepting these funds, it is imperative that you be good stewards of these precious taxpayer dollars by focusing your efforts on the Recovery Act goals of investing in infrastructure that will create or sustain jobs in the near-term and generate maximum economic benefits in the long-term.”

Since 1974, CDBG has provided more than $127 billion to state and local governments to target their own community development priorities. The rehabilitation of affordable housing and the construction and improvement of public facilities have traditionally been the largest uses of CDBG funds, although the program is also an important catalyst for job growth and business opportunities. Annual CDBG funds are distributed to communities according to statutory formulas based on population, poverty, pre-1940 housing stock, growth lag, and housing overcrowding.

Secretary Donovan and the Department are committed to providing the highest level of transparency possible as Recovery Act funds are administered. It is vitally important that the American people are fully aware of how their tax dollars are being spent and can hold their federal leaders accountable. Every dollar of Recovery Act funds HUD spends can be reviewed and tracked at HUD’s Recovery Act website. The full text of HUD’s funding notices and tracking of future performance of these grants is also available at HUD’s Recovery Act website.

Tennessee amounts

• Bristol: $62,790
• Chattanooga: $465,678
• Clarksville: $215,046
• Cleveland: $89,967
• Franklin City: $73,348
• Jackson: $157,518
• Johnson City: $131,467
• Kingsport: $109,233
• Knox County: $270,573
• Knoxville: $504,654
• Memphis: $2,177,302
• Morristown: $78,824
• Murfreesboro: $169,316
• Nashville-Davidson: $1,316,347
• Oak Ridge: $68,498
• Shelby County: $276,897
• State of Tennessee: $7,095,627

About the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

HUD is the nation’s housing agency committed to sustaining homeownership; creating affordable housing opportunities for low-income Americans; and supporting the homeless, elderly, people with disabilities and people living with AIDS. The Department also promotes economic and community development and enforces the nation’s fair housing laws. More information about HUD and its programs is available on the Internet at www.hud.gov and espanol.hud.gov.

Famed English statesman Sir Francis Bacon once made the still-meaningful statement that knowledge is power.  However, to gain knowledge you must have access to information.  TDOT provides several ways for drivers to get traffic information, both before leaving home and while traveling in Tennessee.

TDOT SmartWay is Tennessee’s intelligent transportation system which uses advanced information technologies to improve the safety and operation of highways.  An important component of TDOT SmartWay is TN511.  Travelers anywhere in Tennessee can get information on road and travel conditions, incidents, and construction on state highways by simply calling 511 from land lines or cell phones.  Since becoming operational in August of 2006, TN511 has logged nearly two million calls.  Callers to the system can connect to 511 systems in our bordering states as well, where available.  TDOT is also utilizing the social networking tool, Twitter, to send alerts to followers about roadway conditions across the state or by region.  TDOT began utilizing the service in mid-May and currently has more than 1,000 followers.

The TDOT SmartWay system web site gives visitors views of traffic cameras and other information by visiting www.tn.gov/tdot/tdotsmartway.  Through a partnership with the Tennessee Highway Patrol and other local law enforcement agencies, crashes on our interstate system are reported immediately and placed on the TDOT SmartWay web site and on TN511 to ensure accurate, timely information.  In Tennessee’s urban areas, large overhead message signs alert motorists of problem areas as they travel, allowing them the opportunity to take another route.  This also helps reduce the potential for secondary crashes caused by drivers encountering unanticipated backups.  Nashville, Knoxville and Memphis have fully integrated TDOT SmartWay systems which include Highway Advisory Radio stations, which are AM stations that broadcast traffic tie-ups.  Chattanooga’s full system will be in place by 2010.  TDOT’s first rural SmartWay components are also now available along Rockwood Mountain and throughout the rural areas of East Tennessee.  Additionally, a fog warning system has been implemented along I-75 between Chattanooga and Knoxville, utilizing message boards and other tools to alert motorists to heavy fog in the area.

TDOT also continues to use traditional methods to keep motorists informed.  The department has partnered with the Tennessee Department of Tourist Development to distribute traffic and travel information, such as free statewide maps, to travelers at Tennessee welcome centers.  Recently, specially-prepared informational maps were given to travelers explaining the extended closure of a section of I-40 in Knoxville, part of TDOT’s SmartFIX40 accelerated construction project.  We also continue to work with Tourist Development on informational projects such as placing tourist-oriented guide signs along our roadways.

Using information sharing systems, such as the TDOT SmartWay system and TN511, and cooperating with our partner agencies, TDOT will continue to work diligently to keep Tennessee motorists informed and in motion.

SmartFIX40 Races toward an Early Finish

TDoT commissioner Gearld Nicely

Admittedly, it was a radical idea – shut down a major interstate through the heart of a city for 14 months. Other states had done total interstate closures, but none for this duration. In just a few days, we will reopen a safer, more modern and totally redesigned Interstate 40 in downtown Knoxville. SmartFIX40 is racing to an early finish.

Before we talk about the finish, let’s go back to the beginning. SmartFIX is an accelerated construction process. It involves closing a roadway to allow around-the-clock work, uninterrupted by traffic, and can dramatically reduce the time it takes to complete a project. Using the SmartFIX concept saved Knoxville drivers 2 ½-3 years of construction traffic tie-ups. As proof, the new stretch of I-40 will open 18 days ahead of schedule.

Before undertaking this innovative approach, many parties had to be on board. Obviously, state and local leadership had to buy in. Governor Phil Bredesen and Mayors Bill Haslam and Mike Ragsdale were able to see the benefit of using the SmartFIX concept to rebuild I-40 and James White Parkway in Knoxville.

We are very grateful for the cooperation of Knoxville residents and business owners. From the neighborhood groups who worked with us from the beginning to local drivers who found new ways around town, Knoxvillians helped make SmartFIX40 a success. I know the closure has been an inconvenience, but I believe most people will appreciate the new and improved roadway and the time saved.

On June 12, the first cars will roll across the new I-40, which includes six lanes, four auxiliary lanes, three new noise walls, nine new bridges, and improvements to twelve side streets. Work to rebuild the one-mile stretch of I-40 began on May 1, 2008 and took more than 3.5 million pounds of bridge reinforcing steel, 17,000 cubic yards of bridge concrete, 345,000 yards of material (earth and rock), and 143,799 tons of asphalt.

We have planned a number of activities for Knoxville residents to welcome back the main thoroughfare. On Thursday, June 11, the Knoxville Track Club will hold a once-in-a-lifetime run and walk event, the Fast 40 Dash. People will be able to run or walk the newly completed section of interstate and see the work close up in a way it will never be seen again. Then on Friday, June 12, we will stop the clock and open I-40 to traffic. We encourage Knoxville residents to be some of the first in line to drive the new stretch of interstate by arriving at the parking lot of the Timothy Street Baptist Church on Knoxville Zoo Drive by 1:30 p.m. ET on June 12. When the time comes to open up the roadway, law enforcement officers will lead a line of cars down to the new I-40 and a new beginning for transportation in the city.

So get ready. On June 12, Knoxville gets its I-40 back.

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Gallatin is not alone. At least nine other communities in Tennessee, including Knoxville, Chattanooga, Germantown, Murfreesboro, and Jackson currently operate these devices.¹ Other Tennessee communities considering their use include Clarksville, Morristown, Cookeville, La Follette, and Oak Ridge. Additionally, Chattanooga, Jackson, Mount Carmel, Red Bank, and Selmer have begun using speed cameras, similar devices used to capture speeding motorists.²

Four companies provide most of the red light camera systems used in Tennessee. Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions installed the systems in Gallatin, Jackson, and Red Bank.³ Another company based in California, Redflex Traffic Systems, contracted with Kingsport, Knoxville, and Mount Carmel to provide similar services.⁴ Murfreesboro uses TraffiPax, a subsidiary of a German company.⁵ Germantown has the longest-running system, put in place in 2002 by Rhode Island-based Nestor Traffic Systems.⁶

What is a Red Light Camera System?

Red Light Cameras are sophisticated surveillance systems designed to catch drivers who run red lights. Though the majority of the systems in Tennessee focus on red light runners, some police speed limits, while others do both. They work through a complex system of triggers, cameras and computers.⁷

Drivers “caught” typically receive a citation by mail within a few weeks of the incident. These citations are a cash cow for municipalities. In 2007, the City of Gallatin issued almost 20,000 citations, a number equal to more than half the town’s population.⁸ The City collected nearly $1 million in fines attributable to the cameras, not including court costs associated with defendants who chose to appear in court and contest their fines. According to the citations, defendants must pay the fine. The only other option is to assign liability to another party by submitting an affidavit stating that the defendant was not driving the vehicle at the time.⁹

The Stated Justification

Red light camera systems attract the attention of communities looking to reduce their operating expenses. In theory, the systems reduce the number of paid officers on duty, thereby decreasing overhead expenses. Additionally, the devices work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with little or no maintenance. A single officer typically reviews the film footage before citations are sent.

Communities implementing these systems primarily cite safety as the reason to install the cameras. According to these cities, the cameras will punish those who create dangerous conditions by running red lights, encouraging them to act more cautiously in the future. Further, the known existence of the cameras is said to encourage drivers to begin braking when the light turns yellow, rather than increasing their speed to “beat the light.”

Follow the Money: The Real Reason

While cities claim that safety, deterrence, and cost-reduction are their ultimate priorities in camera system installations, revenue statements indicate otherwise. Cities that employ the devices see a dramatic spike in revenue for traffic violations. Revenues collected by the City of Kingsport during the 2006 calendar year, just before camera installation, totaled $342,150 for traffic fines, parking fines, and code enforcement fines.¹⁰ From 2001 to 2006, such fines ranged from $167,998 to $358,014 per year.¹¹ Traffic cameras were installed on Dec. 27, 2006.¹² Not surprisingly, fines skyrocketed. Kingsport collected $1,529,823 in the year after the cameras were installed, more than four times the revenue from the previous year (see “Figure 1: Kingsport Fine Collections,” right).¹³

The most alarming aspect of this revenue generation is where the money goes. The camera companies enter into agreements with the cities, install the cameras, and sit back and let the cities do the dirty work. After collecting the fines from unsuspecting drivers, each city remits from 45 to 85 percent of the money to the companies. Thus, the cities’ actual revenue generated typically amounts to less than half that collected in fines (see “Figure 2: Fines Remitted by Municipalities to Camera Companies,” below).

The Problems: Collusion, Safety Decline, Constitutional Violations

Collusion

It is common for government to contract with private companies to provide services or goods to the public that the government ordinarily would supply. In fact, numerous private companies provide public services such as corrections facilities, fire and rescue service, and trash collection. Most often, privatized services are far more efficient and cost-effective than government could provide. According to a study conducted by the Reason Foundation, the federal government has saved taxpayers $7.2 billion over the past five years by privatizing services.¹⁴

However, when a private company obtains its entire profit from fines collected through traffic violation enforcement, many serious problems arise. Even more troubling is that, in certain cases, companies themselves are responsible for conducting police business. The agreement between the City of Germantown and Nestor provides that the company, not the city, is responsible for mailing citations and attempting to collect the fines.¹⁵

Since the contracts between the Tennessee cities and the camera companies stipulate that a large portion of the fines collected are to be remitted to the companies, the companies certainly have a strong interest to encourage a large number of fines. In many cases, the companies are reimbursed on a fine-by-fine basis. The cities pad their coffers with the remaining revenue generated by the systems. Hence, the two entities claiming to reduce the number of intersection accidents by deterring red light running have a vested interest in an increase in the number of drivers running red lights.

Simply put, increased obedience to traffic signals would significantly reduce revenues for both parties. If safety is truly the primary objective, these systems should eventually work themselves out of business, since red light running would end. Of course, that is not the goal of either the companies or the cities.

Unfortunately, the problem extends well beyond the local level. A May 2001 report by Dick Armey, then Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, concludes that citations generated by such cameras are a “federal issue and not just a local one.”¹⁶ The federal government is partially funding their implementation based on the purported “safety” benefits.¹⁷ Thus, not only are cities fining motorists to boost corporate revenues for companies based in other states and countries, but Congress is spending tax dollars to implement the systems.

Safety Decline

Numerous concerns also arise out of the traffic accidents associated with installing these camera systems. Various studies, including the Safety Evaluation of Red-Light Cameras, by the Federal Highway Administration, arrived at two conclusions: the devices reduce right-angle (Tbone) collisions, but increase rear-end collisions.¹⁸ Further, as one commentator suggests, the accuracy of statistical information disseminated by red light camera proponents is dubious. Engineer Dale Gedcke, PhD, noted in a report earlier this year that statistics related to red light cameras are problematic for two reasons. First, the “number of accidents reported before and after [red light camera] installation is so small that the statistical uncertainty in those numbers obscures any trend.” Second, “there are so many confounding variables [weather, day of the week, traffic flow, construction projects, etc.], that it is extremely difficult to extract the true effect of [red light cameras] without removing the effect of those confounding variables.”¹⁹

Keeping this statistical uncertainty in mind, data provided by Tennessee cities using red light cameras showed no significant overall decline in the number of accidents at camera-stationed intersections. Accidents reported by the City of Chattanooga declined at certain intersections, while increasing at others between January 2006 and May 2008.²⁰

The Armey Report identifies a “Dilemma Zone” in which drivers cannot properly go or stop. It concludes that the zone, in concert with improperly adjusted yellow light duration times, is responsible for an increase in the numbers of accidents at intersections having red light cameras.

This makes sense. The yellow light exists to provide drivers time to make a decision. If they have enough time, drivers should come to a safe stop at the intersection. If not, drivers should have just enough time to continue through the intersection before the light turns red. Shortening the yellow light time forces drivers into even quicker decisions. Accordingly, the likelihood that drivers will make the wrong decision increases.

Interestingly, most controversy surrounding yellow light times coincides with the locations of intersections with red light cameras. Shortening yellow light duration to less than three seconds is a violation of Tennessee state law.²¹ Nonetheless, some Tennessee communities have tampered with the duration of yellow lights at intersections with cameras, creating inconsistency. In early 2008, Chattanooga was forced to refund $8,800 to defendants when the discrepancy was discovered.²²

Nashville also is suspected of shortening yellow light duration. In 2006, Nashville resident Joe Savage clocked inconsistent durations of yellow lights in the Capital City.²³ The Nashville Scene later confirmed his findings.²⁴ Not surprisingly, Tennessee has plenty of company. Other communities around the country – including Springfield, Missouri; Lubbock and Dallas, Texas; and Union City, California – face similar charges.

Predictably, an increase in yellow light duration time by only one second has been shown to reduce accidents by up to 40 percent.²⁵ In the city of Mesa, Arizona, a one-second increase in the duration of yellow lights yielded a 73 percent decrease in the number of citations issued by red light cameras.²⁶ Other areas experienced similar declines in revenue through increasing yellow light duration times, including Fort Collins, Colorado, and the Commonwealth of Virginia, which experienced a 94 percent decrease of citations by increasing yellow light durations by 1.5 seconds.²⁷ Virginia has since halted the use of red light cameras.

The mere presence of the watchful cameras encourages drivers to attempt to stop at yellow lights even if passing through the light would be safer. Coupled with a decrease in yellow light timing, this can readily explain the increase in the number of rear-end collisions that occur at intersections with red light cameras.

Unfortunately, most cities that use the cameras have failed to acknowledge the simple solution of yellow light timing, and as Dr. Gedcke suggests, those cities place enforcement over more practical engineering solutions. In fact, “when [cameras] show up as a proposal, engineering studies and solutions are almost never referenced,” notes Dr. Gedcke.²⁸ His theory is that the cameras, primarily enforcement tools, are marketed directly to law enforcement officials, such as the city police chief. “Consequently,” states Gedcke, “the police department becomes the passionate advocate to the exclusion of the traffic engineering department.”²⁹ As a result, city leaders place potential revenue over safety.

Constitutional Infringement

Constitutional rights are infringed upon by the enforcement of the camera programs. The programs have faced numerous constitutional challenges. These challenges often fail on non-substantive grounds or are scoffed at by judges as titular and inconsequential, especially given the relatively small penalties involved.

A strong case can be made for constitutional violations on both procedural and substantive grounds. Procedural challenges range from evidentiary matters to sufficiency of notice. Substantive issues include the Confrontation Clause, self-incrimination, search and seizure, equal protection, and most significantly, due process, by shifting of the burden of proof to the defendant to prove non-guilt.

Gallatin’s program is now the subject of a lawsuit filed by Wayne Detring, an attorney from Hendersonville who received two such citations in the mail. As of this publication, however, it appears likely that the case will be dismissed as moot because the city voluntarily dismissed the citations, presumably in an attempt to avoid an unfavorable ruling on the A.C.E.S. program. Such actions make it all the more difficult to challenge the legality of the programs.

The number of successful challenges to the tickets proves this point. Of the 15,133 fines issues by Kingsport in 2007 and 2008, only nine defendants were found not guilty. That makes for a 99.9 percent guilty rate. The sheer unlikelihood of successfully challenging the fines contributes to the continuity of the programs.

Despite this hurdle, in March 2008, Judge Thomas Philips of the U.S. District Court for Eastern Tennessee sent a clear message regarding the constitutionality of these devices in Williams v. Redflex. In his order granting dismissal of the case on procedural grounds, Judge Philips stated, “Although this plaintiff lacks standing, the court is constrained to observe that the Red Light Photo Enforcement Program raises numerous constitutional questions.”³⁰

Most communities have drafted civil, as opposed to criminal, statutes to prosecute these cases. Civil infractions are not reportable on driving records; hence, these communities count on Tennesseans not to challenge the system. Further, this linguistic maneuvering permits cities to skirt various constitutional protections afforded criminal defendants (including motorists cited for speeding violations) that are not invoked in civil cases. However, Tennessee case law negates this criminal versus civil distinction. Rather, the question turns not on the language used, but on whether the fine serves to remedy a violation (civil-like, and thus fewer constitutional implications) or whether it is punitive in nature (criminal-like, and thus invoking additional constitutional rights).³¹

Red light camera citations certainly fit within this criminal paradigm, because fining an individual who has already run a red light punishes that person for doing so, even if the end goal is to deter future running of red lights. Further, once the light has been run, the specific violation itself cannot be remedied. Contrast this from building and zoning violations, where civil fines properly entice violators to correct existing violations. This corroborates the notion that, although cities deem these fines to be civil, they are actually punitive, and additional constitutional protections should apply. Judge Philips made note of this Williams, stating that “[t]he key issue which must be resolved in these cases is whether the penalty imposed is civil or criminal. If the penalty is indeed criminal, then a panoply of federal constitutional rights, including rights to confrontation and rights against self-incrimination [will attach].”³²

For tickets issued prior to July 1, 2008, a crucial issue is the lack of service of process. The Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure require all complaints (including citations) be served upon defendants either personally or through certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. All cities in Tennessee that mail red light camera citations use regular mail to do so. This less protective process can lead to motorists being held liable for something they had no knowledge of whatsoever. It contravenes the entire notion of justice and fair play that serve as the basis for providing adequate notice to defendants in lawsuits.

The Tennessee General Assembly recently made it easier for municipalities to serve defendants with citations. As of July 1, 2008, cities operating camera programs no longer must comply with the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure regarding notice of service of process. Rather, they may send the citations via regular mail, without the protections the Rules are designed to afford.³³ This codification of bad policy makes it all the more difficult for private citizens to challenge the actions of municipalities.

Another key issue is the lack of compliance with the Federal and Tennessee Rules of Evidence, which require a party offering photographic evidence into trial to authenticate the photograph. Those who have chosen to fight their red light camera citations in court have almost always found a very relaxed standard to meet these evidentiary requirements. In most instances, judges do not require the municipality to lay any evidentiary foundation before the photographs are admitted as conclusive evidence that the defendant is guilty of the violation. Such a lax attitude violates individuals’ rights, erodes the integrity of the judicial system, and could lead to egregious practices by city officials. In an extreme case, with photo-shopping techniques, it is not unforeseeable that city officials in custody of the photographs could use technology to their advantage to create the opportunity for more revenues. The rules of evidence are designed to protect against this possibility, and their abandonment or even relaxed enforcement increases the likelihood of abuse.

The most insidious issue arising from the application of these cameras is the unconstitutional shifting of the burden of proof to the defendant. A prevalent notion in the American criminal justice system is that defendants are innocent until proven guilty. Here, when defendants are presumed guilty until they prove otherwise, they have little chance of succeeding in court. This affront to both the United States and Tennessee constitutions makes challenging the legality of red light cameras all the more necessary, yet very difficult at the same time.

Conclusion

As the Armey Report notes, fixing the problems associated with these systems is more difficult because they generate millions of dollars in revenue. This conflict of interest creates no incentives for communities to solve the problem of red light running using other proven means, such as longer yellow light times.

To achieve actual reductions in red light running and related accidents, Tennessee cities should look to states such as Texas and Virginia, where red light cameras are being disassembled, and yellow light durations extended. A simple one-second increase in yellow light duration has proven to be a far safer alternative to red light cameras. If cities really wish to increase the safety of their citizens, they should utilize this simpler and more cost-effective option.

Lawmakers must realize the importance of constitutional safeguards and critically reevaluate the supposed benefits of red light camera systems. If the General Assembly and municipal governments are serious about the safety of Tennesseans, they should work to guarantee safety, not reduce it. If our state’s legislative bodies continue to tread on citizens’ rights, then it becomes imperative that state and federal courts breathe life into the Constitution. A properly engaged judiciary is one that takes people’s rights seriously and bucks the trend of legislative deference. Government policy should never serve to the detriment of the citizenry just to make a quick buck.

About the Authors

George Shifflett is a research associate at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. He can be reached at george at tennesseepolicy dot org.

Justin Owen, J.D., is the Director of Legal Policy at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. He can be reached at justin at tennesseepolicy dot org.

About the Tennessee Center for Policy Research

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization dedicated to providing concerned citizens, the media and public leaders with expert empirical research and timely free market policy solutions to public policy issues in Tennessee.

The Center generates and encourages public policy remedies grounded in the innovation of private enterprises, the ingenuity of individuals and the abilities of active communities to achieve a freer, more prosperous Tennessee.

Guarantee of Quality Scholarship

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is committed to delivering the highest quality and most reliable research on Tennessee policy issues. The Center guarantees that all original factual data are true and correct and that information attributed to other sources is accurately represented. The Center encourages rigorous critique of its research. If an error ever exists in the accuracy of any material fact or reference to an independent source, please bring the mistake to the Center’s attention with supporting evidence. The Center will respond in writing and correct the mistake in an errata sheet accompanying all subsequent distribution of the publication, which constitutes the complete and final remedy under this guarantee.

Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the Tennessee Center for Policy Research is properly cited.

Copyright © 2008 by The Tennessee Center for Policy Research,

Nashville, Tennessee
P.O. Box 121331
Nashville, Tennessee 37212
(615) 383-6431 · Fax: (615) 383-6432

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org ·

References

• 1 “Communities using red light and/or speed cameras.” Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 05 Aug. 2008.
• 2 Ibid.
• 3 “Red Light Camera Program.” City of Red Bank, Tennessee. 26 June 2008. ., “Open house held at GPD related the red light camera enforcement system.” Gallatin Police Department. 06 Sept. 2006. 26 June 2008.
• 4 “North American Presence.” Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., North America. 26 June 2008.
• 5 Willard, Michelle. “Red-light cameras go online Sunday.” The Murfreesboro Post 27 May 2008.
• 6 Garlington, Lela. “Germantown will add third traffic-light camera.” Commercial Appeal 25 Oct. 2007.
• 7 Harris, Tom. “How Red-light Cameras Work.” HowStuffWorks.com. 15 April 2008.
• 8 Storment, Corporal W. “Gallatin Police Department Interview.” Telephone interview. 25 Apr. 2008. Interview conducted by George Shifflett.
• 9 “City of Jackson Notice of Violation.” City of Jackson Police Department. 17 May 2008.
• 10 “Records Division.” Kingsport Police Department. 7 Mar. 2008. 20 Apr. 2008.
• 11 Ibid.
• 12 Agreement between Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. and Kingsport, Tennessee, ¶ 1.
• 13 Ibid.
• 14 Gilroy, Leonard C., ed. Annual Privatization Report. Rep. Reason Foundation. 2008. p 5.
• 15 Agreement between Nestor Traffic Systems, Inc. and Germantown, Tennessee, Exhibit A, Section 3.
• 16 Armey, Rep. Dick. “The Red Light Running Crisis: Is it Intentional?” Highway Robbery. May 2001. 10 June 2008.
• 17 Ibid.
• 18 Safety Evaluation of Red-Light Cameras. U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. April 2005.
• 19 Gedcke, Dale. The Placebo Effect and Red-Light Cameras. 8 June 2008.
• 20 Data submitted by City of Chattanooga pursuant to open records request. Compiled by Ben Taylor, Traffic Engineering Department.
• 21 TENN. CODE ANN. § 55-8-110 (2008).
• 22 “Six Cities That Were Caught Shortening Yellow Light Times For Profit.” National Motorists Association. 26 Mar. 2008. 10 June 2008. light-times-for-profit/>.
• 23 Ibid.
• 24 Tobia, P.J. “Yellow Light Blues.” Nashville Scene 11 May 2006.
• 25 “Protest Red Light Cameras!” American Civil Liberties Union of Texas. 1 Nov. 2006. 15 June 2008.
• 26 Ibid.
• 27 Ibid.
• 28 Gedcke, Dale. Red Light Cameras (RLCs): Why Does Enforcement Trump Engineering? 22 June 2008.
• 29 Ibid.
• 30 Satterfield, Jamie. “Judge rejects red light lawsuit.” Knoxville News Sentinel 22 Mar. 2008.
• 31 City of Chattanooga v. Davis, 54 S.W.3d 248 (Tenn. 2001).
• 32 Satterfield, Jamie. “Judge rejects red light lawsuit.” Knoxville News Sentinel 22 Mar. 2008.
• 33 2008 Tenn. Pub. Acts 962.

The company our city is currently favoring is Redflex, an Australian company. They have been the vendor in charge of the City of Knoxville’s red-light camera system that is until August 1st. Redflex missed a filing deadline to renew their contract. Reflex lays the blame for the missed deadline on the Federal Express package courier company.

The City of Knoxville has had mixed results with their experience with Redflex and could have opted to allow Redflex to file their bid late but chose specifically not to do so. This is a clear indication of their dissatisfaction with the company.

Clarksville frequently holds the city of Knoxville as an example the city of Clarksville should aspire to. So perhaps we should delay awarding a red-light camera enforcement contract to a company that they are in the process of dumping.

Tennessee: Redflex Misses Camera Contract Deadline

An Australian red light camera operator lost the ability to issue tickets in Knoxville, Tennessee because it failed to send the required documents to the city on time. The Knoxville News Sentinel reports that officials have flatly refused to consider renewing a multi-million dollar contract with Redflex because the company did not properly file paperwork by July 31.  “They busted the deadline,” city purchasing agent Boyce Evans told the Knoxville News. “I was very surprised. … Redflex knew that was going to be due before anybody.”

In May 2006 the Melbourne-based company first installed the red light camera network that now covers fifteen Knoxville intersections. The devices last year generated $2,599,732 in revenue, with Redflex pocketing over sixty percent of the annual take. Because the original contract will expire on November 8, the city gave Redflex until July 31 to submit a proposal for a three-year extension that included a few revisions that the city wanted to make.

Redflex blamed FedEx for delivering the package on August 1, while FedEx apologized for an unexpected problem in getting the package delivered. “Unfortunately, the FedEx vehicle transporting the shipment from our facility to our Los Angeles sort facility arrived later than scheduled and missed the outbound flight,” a FedEx customer relations employee wrote to Redflex. “Regrettably, efforts to expedite the shipment have been unsuccessful.” FedEx will refund the shipping cost of just over $30, which is scant consolation to the Australian company that lost the opportunity to take $5 million from Tennessee drivers.

Some of these drivers themselves have claimed to be unfairly treated by the Redflex cameras. In 2006, a judge tossed out a red light camera ticket issued to an innocent man because the Redflex camera misread his license plate. Although victorious, the motorist was not compensated after losing $160 in wages to defend himself against the $50 citation. An even more blatant error was uncovered when a man was ticketed for stopping at a red light by the camera in February 2007. Another ticket in May 2007 accused the owner of a BMW convertible of running a red light in a pickup truck that she had never seen in her life. Georgia-based Lasercraft and Germany’s Traffipax both succeeded in ensuring their bids arrived on time and the city will choose which of the two it prefers to take over the program.

Source: Late delivery stops Redflex (Knoxville News Sentinel (TN), 9/4/2008)

About The Newspaper

The Newspaper is a journal covering motoring issues around the world from a political perspective.

“Support the troops!” has some meat behind it in Oak Ridge. “We’re here for the veterans!” is the rally cry of East Tennessee’s veterans business outreach programs. That is the consensus of three Clarksville citizens who, along with over 250 others, attended the all-day Oak Ridge Veterans Business Conference. Dr. James H. Cossingham, President, Gold Eagle Corp. and his associate, Turner McCullough Jr.- contributing writer for this publication, attended the conference at the invitation of Herstle Cross, CEO, Cornerstone Equipment, Supplies & Consulting. Cornerstone is an SBA-8A Native American company at the Oak Ridge National Nuclear Security Agency.

Ms Felicia Johnson, newly named director of the Clarksville Small Business Development Center at Austin Peay State University also attended. She was seeking to establish contacts with her counterparts in East Tennessee and especially Oak Ridge, which could enhance opportunities for her future clients in Clarksville and Montgomery County. The conference was held at the Y-12 National Nuclear Security Agency Complex’s New Hope Center, 602 Scarboro Road, the new visitors and conference center at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Complex.

The conference was hosted by the Y-12 National Security Complex and the University of Tennessee Center for Industrial Services Procurement Technical Assistance Center. Co-sponsors and partners included Bechtel Jacobs Company, City of Knoxville, City of Oak Ridge, East Tennessee Military Affairs Council, Knox County Government, Knoxville Chamber of Commerce, Knoxville Utilities Board, the National Nuclear Security Administration.

Additional participants included Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Roane State Community College, Small Business Administration, Tennessee Small Business Development Center, Tennessee Economic and Community Development and its Business Enterprise Resource Office, Tennessee Valley Authority, United States Army Corps of Engineers, United States Department of Energy, and Wackenhut Services Oak Ridge Team.

The purpose of the Veterans Business Conference is to increase business opportunities for service-disabled veteran and veteran-owned small businesses. Michael Scott Golden, CEO, Veterans Construction Inc. was the keynote speaker. Veterans Construction is a Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business of Knoxville, Tennessee with extensive experience with the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Veterans Administration.

Attendees heard important information on the status of veteran small business programs throughout the federal government; a forum regarding business opportunities with DOE and NNSA prime contractors; information of doing business with federal, local and state governments and seminars about developing a business plan and financing small business ventures. Fort Campbell’s Contracting Office also gave a presentation and met with conference attendees on contracting opportunities and procedures. The Oak Ridge Y-12 Complex is aggressively pursuing technology transfer licensing opportunities and seeks service-disabled veteran and veteran owned businesses for its ventures.

The conference center’s corridor was filled with governmental and business entities offering information, contracting registration forms, free gifts and contact information. Registration was accomplished with a continental breakfast and a boxed lunch was available at the mid-day break.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I just love the fact that the above video points out that the Albuquerque Mayor claims cameras have reduced accidents by 20%, while multiple independent reports show they increased by 20%, this sounds a lot like Knoxville… One side has to be lying! Who might that be? I vote for the city since they are receiving a financial benefit from the cameras that they would lose because if the citizens knew these cameras increased accidents, they would be demanding they be removed. Lets avoid this issue in Clarksville totally by saying no to traffic enforcement Cameras!

Remember our city officials want to install the type system here and our lights are still timed to cause more congestion not less. How many times have we all seen Riverside drive back up over 1 mile from the Riverside Drive intersection clear to McGregor park. North Second street back up clear up Emerald Hill towards Forbes and Marion. Kraft street backed up almost to Lincoln Homes. All because New Providence BLVD is backed up all the way to Peachers mill.

This leads to frustrated drivers trailing through the intersections whom with the cameras the city will likely be able to profit from.  Do you really think they will have any incentive to fix the clear problems with our roads when it’s generating a profit for them? Nope and their contract will likely prohibit road improvements if it impacts camera profits. A common feature in contracts of this nature, unless of course the city agrees to pay the for-profit camera vendor to make up the difference.

The Redflex web site proclaims nearly 1,000 people are killed by red-light runners in the United States every year. However in 2003 there were 196 million drivers and 231 million motor vehicles.  This means that you are more in danger of being struck by lightning than being injured or killed by a red-light runner in our city. Now I wouldn’t begin to offer odds anywhere else in Clarksville for that I think you are at a much higher risk, and these cameras won’t help you with that at all.

During the last year in the entire city of Clarksville there were 1,470 accidents at intersections throughout the city, there were an additional 1,274 citations issued for either running a red light or stop sign. There are over 85 intersections in Clarksville which have traffic signals.  The entire city averages averages approximately 4 accidents at intersections per day. At Riverside Drive alone, during the last year over 39 million vehicles passed through that intersection. - Clarksville, TN considering red light cameras: Things the voters should consider

Does Clarksville’s accident level seem high enough to justify traffic enforcement cameras when they are proven to increase the likelihood of you or a loved one getting injured or killed when you get rear ended at one of these for-profit camera intersections?  If the city wants to make our intersections safer they would try engineering, before resorting to enforcement. Of course doing things like that wouldn’t put more of your money in our city officials hands. Contact your city council member and let them know that you strongly oppose their dangerous revenue generating scheme!

The Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan (CCRP) has been met with extreme opposition from residents in the affected area, who jokingly (or not) call their part of Clarksville “Blightville.” I’ve had the opportunity to attend a few of the meetings where the plan was discussed, and as a member of the Human Relations Commission, I’ve been on quite a few of the email lists where this topic has been the point of a lot of major contention. This has been so important that City Mayor Johnny Piper has distributed a letter to affected residents, which reads in part:

Recently, a group calling itself the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition has been distributing a flier that has false and misleading information about the redevelopment plan. I am particularly concerned with the allegation that the City desires to take property from business owners and residents and sell it to developers as part of eminent domain.

The flier states: “Your property can be condemned by a majority vote of the City Council and then resold to private developers.”

Please do not be frightened into believing what the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition is misrepresenting about the plan. The City of Clarksville has no intentions of taking your property. The redevelopment plan ordinance actually makes it harder for any government to exercise eminent domain. There are many layers of protection for property owners built into the ordinance that are not being revealed to you in these fliers distributed by the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition.

Note: the full text of the Mayor’s letter is provided at the end of this commentary.

While there are indeed many steps and protections in place for the use of eminent domain, the reality of the ordinance in its present form is that it removes one step by calling the entire area “blighted.” This is a valid concern, and I’ve said that on several occasions. It’s my understanding that the broad “blight” sweeping designation will be addressed in the forthcoming revised bill, as it should be. Mayor Piper’s letter also says:

The Clarksville Property Rights Coalition has been going door to door telling residents and business owners that the City of Clarksville is going to take your property and you will have 30 days to vacate the property. This scare tactic used by the CCRP is completely FALSE. This will not happen!

I’ve also been hearing (and reading) these claims of how “certain people” associated with the Property Rights Coalition are allegedly telling residents that they’ll be told to leave their homes in “30 days” if the plan goes into effect. This is simply not true and is a gross and distorted misrepresentation of everything that the Coalition is working for.

I don’t know if the claim is just a way to demonize the CPRC leaders, or if a few misinformed individuals are voicing their own fears about the plan. Either way, it’s important that false information be dismissed as such. I urge anyone who is making these claims to better understand the ordinance. The reality is that the Mayor is quite correct. The claim that residents will be given thirty days to vacate their homes is completely false. However, I don’t know if these tactics are being spread by members of the CPRC. If this is true, then it should stop.

I’ve been wanting to read just what points of the ordinance were “misrepresented,” and with the distribution of the Mayor’s letter, we have exactly that. I would love to know, however, who has been spreading the idea that people would be given 30 days to vacate their homes. I’m not aware of any of this being said at any of the CPRC meetings. We’ve covered a lot of what WAS said, and I’ve yet to see any rebuttals to those points. The most that we have seen up until the Mayor’s letter was a constant dressing-down of John Summers. Alas, I’ve not read anything about what those “misrepresentations” were aside from two major points:

• Summers said that specific projects were required to be attached to any redevelopment plans. This is apparently in question, according to Mayor Piper and the Knoxville redevelopment group. Any information on this point would be especially helpful in understanding how this can be properly implemented.
• Summers said that this is, to his knowledge, the largest area that has ever been targeted for redevelopment. Words like “audacious” were used. However, the Council and Mayor have claimed that Knoxville and Nashville both have targeted similar-sized areas for redevelopment. What would really help in this point is some exact cases where this has been done effectively.

In short, could we get some information that would really help bolster these points WITHOUT attacking Mr. Summers, as we have seen from previous emails and quotes from various City officials and supporters? I know it’s great politics to attack a figurehead, but this is a group of several hundred residents whom you feel are being misled. We need facts, not attacks.

Mr. Summers was indeed a part of a project that was highly criticized by people in his ward when he was a councilman in Nashville. However, he was very popular for quite some time before that, since he had a track record of working with the public and preventing power abuses. No one is perfect, and it’s unfair for anyone to attack the messenger when there are some very specific points of the message that are valid:

• Affected Residents were not notified properly.
• The ordinance and redevelopment plan is entirely too broad and open-ended.
• There are too many questions of legality regarding the ordinance in its current form.
• The area designated as “blighted” is too large.

The above four points have been made by the Mayor in earlier statements and in this letter, and are reasons why it’s being revisited. There was a lot of sabre-rattling before the Mayor put the whole thing on hold, and in my opinion, these are the points that were paramount. I’m glad that the Council is going through this thorough research to build an ordinance which will beautify Clarksville and prevent existing residents from being driven from their homes. The last point is of particular interest and was addressed specifically in the Mayor’s letter:

I also believe that some of the language in the ordinance was inappropriate and should be changed.

For Example: The ordinance says, “it is a blighted area.”

To label the entire area as blighted was improper and this will be addressed in any future ordinance that is put forth. I will not support an ordinance which designates an entire area as blighted under any circumstances. In addition, the city council will be looking at the size of the redevelopment district. I plan to make a recommendation that the size of the district be reduced.

In a final thought, I’m told that there have allegedly been statements been made by some officials that we (Clarksville Online writers and the CPRC) are “uneducated” in the matters of the redevelopment plan. This is especially puzzling since we have not only read and reprinted the ordinance in its entirety, but also the DDP’s redevelopment plan itself. On this point, I need to be clear: if a matter affects a major group of people in Clarksville, we MUST be informed. Simply saying that we’re “uneducated” is unacceptable, and the only correct response is to educate the public as to why such action or ordinance is necessary, and the effect of those actions.

The most important thing, in my opinion, is for officials to avoid the impression of saying, “because we’re the experts.” Whether it’s true or not isn’t relevant, it’s the impression that has to be avoided. The reality is that such attitudes are neither appropriate nor acceptable. We’re all neighbors here, and we have a right to know what is going on, and city officials have the responsibility of disclosing the fine print about any ordinance.

Clearly, there’s a lot that needs to be done, and I believe that Clarksville will benefit from the discussions. Let’s keep everyone informed, and make sure that any redevelopment is appropriate for the city as a whole. No one is opposed to progress, and I have long been a supporter of earlier projects that were later abandoned. I look forward to seeing the CCRP presented in a manner that will benefit everyone, especially residents in and near the downtown area.

Affected Residents

The full text of the Mayor’s letter

February 4, 2008

John Q. Public
1234 First Street
Clarksville, TN 37040

Dear Property Owner,

Recently there has been much controversy surrounding the Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan Ordinance that the City Council passed in October. I believe the controversy stems from misinformation about the plan that has been circulated by several groups over the past few weeks.

As you may or may not be aware, the Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan is an initiative developed by the Downtown District Partnership and has been under review for the past three years. Newspaper articles from the Leaf Chronicle about this redevelopment plan date as far back as 2005.

I first became involved with the plan in February 2007 when the Downtown District Partnership leaders asked me to put it on the City Council agenda for a second reading. It was passed by the City Council on first reading in March of 2006, prior to me becoming Mayor. The City Council postponed the second reading so that the DDP and the property owners could meet to discuss some concerns that were raised by those that would be affected by the plan. Several meetings were held to reach an agreement by all parties involved on the details of the ordinance. When the leadership of the DDP approached the City Council about bringing the redevelopment plan before the city council for second reading again, we were assured by them that this plan had the full support of the property owners and any concerns they may have had were resolved.

Recently, a group calling itself the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition has been distributing a flier that has false and misleading information about the redevelopment plan. I am particularly concerned with the allegation that the City desires to take property from business owners and residents and sell it to developers as part of eminent domain.

The flier states: “Your property can be condemned by a majority vote of the City Council and then resold to private developers.”

Please do not be frightened into believing what the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition is misrepresenting about the plan. The City of Clarksville has no intentions of taking your property. The redevelopment plan ordinance actually makes it harder for any government to exercise eminent domain. There are many layers of protection for property owners built into the ordinance that are not being revealed to you in these fliers distributed by the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition.

The Clarksville Property Rights Coalition has been going door to door telling residents and business owners that the City of Clarksville is going to take your property and you will have 30 days to vacate the property. This scare tactic used by the CCRP is completely FALSE. This will not happen!

I want you to know that I am concerned about the controversy that has overshadowed the good intentions of the plan, but equally concerned that there were some procedures that were not followed properly in accordance with Tennessee law when developing the plan.

For Example: Tennessee law is very clear in stating that a public hearing should have been held and every property owner in the affected area should have been notified of the public hearing.

This did not happen and I can assure you that as we move forward with this issue a public hearing will be held and you will be notified in writing as to the date and location that the public hearing will be take place. I want to give you, the property owners in the affected area, the opportunity to hear about the plan and the opportunity to make comments and ask questions about it. I also believe that some of the language in the ordinance was inappropriate and should be changed.

For Example: The ordinance says, “it is a blighted area.”

To label the entire area as blighted was improper and this will be addressed in any future ordinance that is put forth. I will not support an ordinance which designates an entire area as blighted under any circumstances. In addition, the city council will be looking at the size of the redevelopment district. I plan to make a recommendation that the size of the district be reduced.

Over the next month, you will see a lot of action by the City Council and myself in regards to the Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan. I will propose to the City Council at the February City Council meeting that we establish a whole new ordinance that addresses this issue. Additionally, a group of community leaders and representatives from the affected neighborhoods will be traveling to Knoxville on February 6th to meet with representatives from the Knoxville Redevelopment Corporation (a group that has extensive experience with similar redevelopment plans) to discuss how their redevelopment plans were created.

Please visit the City of Clarksville website at www.cityofclarksville.com to get more information about the Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan. I will be seeking your input as we move forward with this initiative and I hope you will participate in the process.

Sincerely,

John E. Piper