Brutus_buckeye

The numbers are for illustrative purposes. The point is that if you are a public official who wants to use a red light/speed camera scheme to either pad your own pockets or pad the city's coffers, it is not that hard to get away with it (especially if the only party enriched is the sovereign). Whether it is 80 or 90% is irrelevant. Point being, the vast majority accept their fete, whether it is justified or not, and the remainder who challenge can be bought off with an out of court settlement. Playing the odds, it is not to hard to continue to get away with and exploit drivers who are passing through the town.

Or maybe it was someone with the power to make a difference to expose the fleecing of innocent people? How many people get screwed by speed traps, even if they were not speeding. Play the odds. 90% of those cited (legitimate or not) will not want to take the time or energy to challenge things, Of the remaining 10% who would challenge, 9.9% have a threshold where the city will settle with them and pay them out rather than risk discovery on any potential malfeasance that may be going on with the ticket writing scheme. The scheme will then continue in perpetuity. The sole risk is the politician who gets the ticket and has the ability and means to peel back the onion and discover the malfeasance that had been going on for years. All while thousands of drivers get fleeced for tickets some of them never deserved.

So we can put you in the camp that Due Process rights are unimportant to you and that the ends will justify the means. Other people's rights are unimportant to you as long as you have some perceived safety (which may or may not be real). You keep trying to argue that Due Process is just another excuse for people to get away with breaking the law. Cameras, may be a significant piece of evidence but they are only one piece. You cannot rely solely on the camera (despite what others may try and depict). Many times, camera footage may look horrific but only tell a small part of the story, or even provide a completely false narrative. It is why in many cases, camera footage is not always admitted into a case and is treated as hearsay in many circumstances. There has to be other evidence to allow the admission of camera footage in court. How often have you seen a photo, or video and been outraged by what was in it, only to learn that the actual truth contradicted the image or short video clip. This is too common. Take the Cov Cath kid for example. All too often, acting as if video evidence is infallable is a mistake yet people are too quick to put all their faith in that. Using your own example of speed cameras. In your words, if you do not break the law and speed, you have nothing to worry about. But oftentimes, these cameras are contracted out to a 3rd party company who gets a % of tickets they write. Or even when not contracted out, how tempting or easy is it for the small town to add more to their coffers by mis-calibrating the camera? Not too hard, and these are very realistic examples. But yes, these people will eventually be caught. they always are. However, that could often take years, and typically, a defendant with deep pockets who is able to pay the costs to discover the fraud going on. If I were with such a company, or even with a local municipality, the odds are in your favor that you will get away with it for a long time. There will be thousands of fines that the little guy will pay that they should not have to pay because of a rigged camera system. But, if I understand your point, you argue that this is fine or perfectly acceptable because you will save some lives in the process? After all, what is a few extra fines on people who may or may not have broken the law by speeding if you save a couple of lives in the process. That theory turns the entire constitutional premise of presumed innocence on its head, and it is a dangerous thought. Offloading everything to cameras, especially a 3rd party camera is troublesome. Yes, some other states do it, and they are wrong in doing it. It causes trouble. Fortunately, Ohio law has been strengthened to severely limit the scope of when these cameras can be used in order to protect Due Process.

Probably because nobody has put up the money for such a venture. it would be the only studio in the state wherever it is built and would certainly be a booster for talent in those cities that have one, but the bigger question is if the ROI is sufficient enough to build it.

Again, this is state law you are dealing with so due process in Ohio under the Ohio Constitution can have different requirements in other states. Also, many of the more liberal states tend to spit on and give lip service to due process rights so the perceived ends can justify the means. Also, it is more than semantics when issuing the ticket. Ultimately, it is the government, but many of these cameras are owned by private 3rd party contractors who contract with the cities. It is not quite as clear as the government being the accuser in those cases. In some states you have cities commoditize revenue for things like tolls and parking tickets (so what says they could not do that with red light cameras someday) and ultimately sell the system to a 3rd party for enforcement. Fortunately, Ohio has protected these due process rights and looks after the average driver (maybe to the expense of the cities budgets in some cases). Cities like Chicago have had to deal with repercussions from their plans to sell of their parking systems and other essential city enforcement activities.

I think in Pittsburgh its called pollution :)

I do not think the reported stats give an accurate picture of things from the Cleveland perspective. Columbus, yes I can see because it is flat and there is not much topical dynamic that can influence the weather, but the lake plays a huge factor in things with Cleveland. Sometimes in Cleveland, it can be sunny in Westlake but cloudy in Shaker. I think you get more sun on the Westside than East so it depends where you are when you measure things. If the data is being reported from the airport, then conditions could be quite different if you go to Shaker or Euclid or Painesville. I have driven to Cleveland many times where it has been sunny and bright in Strongsville but when I get to Euclid it is cloudy and gray.

Weather is a detriment to Minneapolis too. Minneapolis has a couple of advantages that Cleveland doesn't that helps them. 1) MSP is a capital city so they have the government job stabilizer. Also, they have a large state university (similar setup to Columbus) 2) MSP does not have a competition for talent. Look at the geography - If you grow up in the Dakotas, Iowa and parts of Wisconsin and want to go to a larger city, MSP is your basis and starting point. There really is not other city that is a peer to them or larger to them outside of Chicago which is 6 hours away. Within that same 6 hour driving distance to Cleveland you have (Chicago, Columbus, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Detroit and Indianapolis) all of which could be considered "Peer cities" for talent. If you grow up in small town Iowa and want to go to a large city but still be within a few hour drive from home to see family, what are your options? You have a lot more options in Ohio than you do in Minnesota. Toronto is a unique animal because it is essentially the financial capital of Canada. it is Canada's version of New York now. Seattle thrived because of a unique blend of talent that came during the exact right time to help the city mature into the computer age. Cleveland was not set up for that (and that is not necessarily a fault of anyone there) because they were set up as an industrial powerhouse and churning out all the goods consumed in the country during that period. The best peer city to Cleveland is Pittsburgh and they both have followed a similar trend over the last 50-60 years. Pittsburgh has slightly better weather, but Cleveland has far more prettier girls :) lol

I think people have forgotten about the mistake on the Lake mantra from the 80s. Cleveland's struggles stem from the de-industrialization of the 70s-2010s and the changing economy. No longer did you need the concentration of labor to work in huge factories and many of the white collar support positions left as well when those large manufacturers left town. That has since stabilized and Cleveland (although shrinking some) is not viewed in the same light as it used to be. It is certainly never sunk to the level of Detroit. Cleveland's biggest problem is more of the surrounding problem for NE Ohio in general. Canton/Akron/Youngstown are cities that are shrinking and Cleveland feels some of the residuals from that. However, from community assets (Clinic, Case, strong biotech, other infrastructure, a strong financial and legal sector (although not what it once was 40 years ago)) and Cleveland will be stable for a certain extent. The other problem Cleveland suffers from is the weather, which is a hinderance. The Lake and beauty of that is a huge asset but the constant gray skies, all the snow, etc make it tough to live there for 1/2 the year. Look at all the Great Lake cities (Chicago, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Detroit) they suffer from the same fete although Chicago and Milwaukee sit west of the lake so they dont get as much snow. Give an exec the choice to live in Cleveland and place their business there or live in Florida, Nashville, Carolinas, or even Columbus/Cincinnati and the weather factor is certainly an important factor there.

and some municipalities may do that, others may not. Some intersections may have a delay, others may not. It will take someone willing to bring a case to subpeona the records to challenge it. Chances are, it could go on for years and be abused by the powers that be because the odds of getting caught with such a scheme are minimal.

Well that depends on how you interpret the law.

That is the potential due process violation when it comes to the speeding tickets levied by cameras. By structuring it where you have to pay the fine before you can have a hearing, that creates a big issue.

That may be how some groups may try to sell this in theory but as usually happens in reality is that these fines are disproportionally paid and levied on the poor, minority and underrepresented of society. The injustice is still there, it is just easier to walk away when you can point to the fact that a computer or camera levied the fine so there is more of a perceived fairness. However, if you would look these cameras, there is a disparate impact on the fines being disproportionately levied against the poor. That may happen today too but red light cameras will not change this.

Of course they factor in to the budget. WHen you write more tickets on average, the amount of fines collected goes up dramatically. Look at Elmwood Place a few years back when they were using speed cameras as example #1 on this. The revenues to the police force increased significantly as they stepped up enforcement. When you say that Ohio municipalities are not allowed to make additional revenue off the cameras, what that means in reality is that they cannot charge additional fees for the cost of a camera or other fees associated with the use of the new technology. It does not change the fact that their ticket revenue will double or triple because the camera will pick up more violators both large and small. The camera does not make a judgement call, you are either in violation or you are not. If someone makes a judgement call and goes through a yellow as it turns red, they will get a ticket. A live police officer may realize that this was a borderline judgement call and the driver should only receive a warning. If a driver makes an illegal right turn on red on Xmas Day when no cars are on the road, it does not imperil safety but would still trigger a fine. Finally, if a car stops late because the light is turning red and is partially sticking out in the intersection, this would again trigger a ticket. All of these examples are often examples where a police officer would not send a ticket for such a violation but the camera system will ultimately trigger a ticket. The volume of these minor violations would increase exponentially and the ticket revenue would dramatically increase. That has nothing to do with making extra money off the tickets,

It depends on the jurisdiction for one. Even in Ohio, different counties have their own rules on what qualifies. You also cant look to what other states do and apply it to Ohio as the rules are different here. Since the state passed the law about 5-6 years ago, you cant have speed cameras without an officer present (effectively nullifying their use in Ohio) so it is moot from that point. But it is important to note that this is state law so even if courts in Illinois or Pennsylvania or Michigan do not find due process concerns, that is irrelevant to what Ohio does.

They do not have to witness crimes, but with murder, there is more than the police word vs your word in court. There is usually a lot more evidence. With the red light or speed camera cameras, you have the camera as the main evidence, but camera evidence alone is not sufficient and would have to overcome a hearsay objection so you need the police officer to effectively authenticate the camera and the video on the camera in many cases (not all but many).

Because one of the key tenets of Due Process is that you have a right to question your accuser in court. In this case, it is the officer who wrote the ticket. For parking infractions, if you challenge them (which is rarely done, but can be challenged), the officer who wrote the ticket will have to appear in court to serve as state's witness to show that they did in fact write the ticket, the meter was expired, car was in a no parking zone, etc. at the time, and the officer was acting in the normal scope of their duties. Parking tickets do not care who the driver is because in one sense it does not matter under the theory of the law, it is up to the owner of the car to ensure that it is stored or parked in a proper way. Speeding and Red light violations are a different part of the law so the same theories do not apply as readily. With a red light camera, if someone challenges you would need to subpoena the officer who wrote the ticket, but they can only testify as to what they saw from the footage or stamped off on, not necessarily as to the accuracy of the camera or the time stamp etc, as those were calibrated by different companies. Point being, there are a lot of legal due process challenges that can be brought to invalidate such tickets. It is not super complicated for most attorneys who work in that space and essentially, the mere presence of an attorney in such a case will get it either thrown out or plead down to a lower offense because it is not in the state's interest to prosecute such a case (for many reasons, namely cost, but also the potential risk that the entire law could be struck down by the court). So the people that suffer the full brunt of such laws is often younger, minority, immigrants, and poor people who do not understand the technicalities of the law and cannot afford a lawyer to act in their interest. So that begs the question, should cities be trying to balance their budgets in this way and fund the police on the backs of poor people?

I wouldn't say never. It would cost as much as a new stadium but not necessarily a new domed/roof stadium. If you can come up with a good ROI with increased use of the venue with a roof on it, it could justify the increased cost. The one big takeaway I had in regards to building a new stadium was where are they going to actually build it? ALl the good riverfront property is taken and so is most of the downtown property suitable for a new stadium. Paycor is in the Prime location now and you would not want to give up that prime location

^ @Lazarus that is pretty cool. I am sure it cost a pretty penny to go out there but is still a great experience for those kdis.

It is a crap shoot sometimes. When you think he wont show up, he usually does. It always helps when the officer works late night and was on duty the night before your court date and had a busy night and a lot of paperwork to complete before going home or going to court.

Toll roads and red-light cameras are apples to oranges though. The state has a right to impose a "user fee" to use the roads. Everyone pays tolls equally no matter who you are, just by driving you are subjected to tolls. There is no due process issue taking a photo of your license and sending a bill in the mail. This is just a more efficient way to collect a user fee, which is what tolls are. Only when you do not pay the toll or fee, does a criminal matter of fines apply. That is a separate issue than the actual application of the user fee of going through a toll plaza and having your license scanned. The red-light camera or speeding camera is solely to catch people who are violating the legal speed limit or running the red light. It is not a user fee because only users who do not follow the rules are subject to pay the fee (I know many people say so what, they broke the law and deserve the fine, which is true as long as it is done correctly). Therefore, since this is essentially a criminal issue enforced under the law by the state, the Due Process applies and matters. This is why Ohio changed the law a few years back in regards to speed cameras in the state where the police officer needed to be on-site to monitor the camera (which effectively eliminates the benefits of a speed camera when the police can just use their radar) because of the due process issues involving calibration, etc. It is also why DUI cases are tough to prosecute (and most of the people convicted of DUI are the ones who are not represented) because it is easy to challenge all the steps in the process (including the calibration of the breathalyzer) which make it easier to reduce the charges and have the person plead to a lesser charge.

Due Process is more than a trial. It is a Fair Trial. You seem to have forgotten the fair part. With due process, you have a right to question your accuser to his face. It is why the police officer must appear in court whenever they write the ticket and someone challenges it. Otherwise, the case will be dismissed out of fairness. It does not mean that the person was not speeding, but it means that the state has the burden of proof and must make the officer available at the time of the trail for questioning. Do you seriously think that this could happen with red light cameras? The whole point of them is to cut down on police resources and allow better coverage. Then often, you have 3rd party companies that actually own and run the program. Do you think you could actually subpoena the parties to testify before a court for every ticket that someone challenges? Wont happen, cant happen, just not practical. And when it does happen, those cases would take months to resolve themselves Who suffers the most through this process? Yes, that is correct, the poor, often minority, who does not have the money to properly challenge a dubious claim and has to pay a fine that they should not be responsible for in the first place. Which is why the whole revenue enhancement scheme using cameras is problematic

i thought construction was well underway on the Traction building?

i like the design, especially as it opens it to the street. Right now it looks like a suburban library and is not inviting from the street. You have to have a reason to go there. With the new design it may encourage a passerby to check it out

This has absolutely nothing to do with due process. You cant murder someone either, but that same criminal has a right to fair trial to present his/her case.