RSS
|
Mobile
|
Daily Emails
|
We Twitter
| Make us your home page
College Station's city manager said Wednesday that he would recommend the city end its red light camera program regardless of the outcome to a legal challenge over the validity of last week's election.
A visiting judge ruled Wednesday that College Station's red light cameras would stay up for at least nine more days after two residents filed court papers arguing that Nov. 3 election was in violation of the city's charter. Anyone caught on camera running a red light can still receive a citation.
Voters opted to end the city's red light camera program by a vote of 4,081 to 3,809.
A hearing is set for 1 p.m. Nov. 20 in the 85th District Court to address the petition filed by John Hemrick and Gary Ives.
College Station City Attorney Harvey Cargill did not return phone calls after Wednesday's hearing.
City Manager Glenn Brown said in a statement that the city respects the judge's decision to keep the cameras in operation until the election question is resolved but indicated the cameras would come down either way.
"Should the judge rule that the election is invalid and that the red light cameras should stay, I will recommend to the College Station City Council that we immediately inform American Traffic Solutions that we are giving them the required 60-day notice that we are canceling our contract and the cameras will be turned off," Brown said.
In May, the City Council approved extending its contract with the company by 20 years, though the contract can be ended at any time.
Roger Gordon, an Austin attorney representing Ives and Hemrick, said during the hearing that the city charter calls for a petition for a referendum to overturn an ordinance to be submitted no later than 20 days after the ordinance is passed. College Station resident Jim Ash filed the petition seeking to ban red light cameras 609 days after that deadline, Gordon said.
Gordon requested the nine-day restraining order to prevent the city from turning off the cameras until the charter question is resolved.
The cameras were scheduled to be turned off after the College Station City Council canvassed the election vote Wednesday morning.
In a response to the challenge filed by Ives and Hemrick, the city denied wrongdoing but said there was some disagreement between Ash and the city over whether the petition was intended to be a referendum or an initiative.
"From the time the petition was filed with the city, College Station has consistently informed Mr. Ash that the petition was a referendum that was invalid as untimely filed," the response said.
Still, the response states, the city recognized Ash's insistence that the petition was intended as an initiative and believed an election was necessary.
Mayor Ben White said the city never intended for the election to result in a legal challenge.
"We are having to defend ourselves," he said, adding that the matter centers on the difference between a referendum, which repeals an ordinance, and an initiative, which creates an ordinance.
"It's a play on words, and it's a very important play on words," White said.
Cargill said at Wednesday's hearing that the city wasn't sure whether Ash's petition was valid and trusted the court to decide.
Jim Maness, who wrote the petition that voters signed to get the measure on the ballot, told the judge during the hearing it always was designed to be an initiative.
Maness said the intention of the ballot measure was to create a new ordinance to ban photo enforcement at intersections, not repeal the ordinance that allowed for the camera program.
Gordon's law firm received $1,000 for legal fees from Keep College Station Safe prior to last week's vote, according to a campaign finance report filed by the political action committee.
George Hittner, general counsel for American Traffic Solutions, said in a statement that the company had no ties to Ives and Hemrick.
"As you are aware, Mr. Gordon was the attorney for the Keep College Station Safe PAC, and we have previously worked with his firm on other photo enforcement projects," the statement said. "However, let me be clear, ATS is neither a party nor a potential party to the litigation that Mr. Gordon is currently handling."
Click to see the petition challenging the election.
