Told ya California would do it!

[srkruzich]

State & Local
Los Angeles City Council Makes Exemption to Arizona Boycott for Lucrative Traffic Camera Contract

Published June 23, 2010

| FOXNews.com

    *   Print
    *   Email
    *   Share
    *   Comments (174)
    *
    *   Text Size 

Los Angeles council members voted Wednesday to make an exemption to its self-imposed boycott of Arizona, opting to extend a contract with an Arizona-based company that operates enforcement cameras at Los Angeles intersections -- a program that earned the city $6 million last year (AP).

Los Angeles council members voted Wednesday to make an exemption to its self-imposed boycott of Arizona, opting to extend a contract with an Arizona-based company that operates enforcement cameras at Los Angeles intersections -- a program that earned the city $6 million last year.

Los Angeles has led the boycott against Arizona over its controversial immigration law, banning most city travel to the state as well as future contracts with Arizona companies. The city council has argued that the law, which allows local law enforcement to check the immigration status of any suspected illegal, is unconstitutional and could lead to racial profiling.

But council members on Wednesday made an exception to their boycott, voting to extend a lucrative contract with red-light camera operator American Traffic Solutions, based in Scottsdale.

Citing major safety concerns, council members argued that the red light camera program at 32 Los Angeles intersections should be exempt from the boycott.

"The boycott never intended to impede public safety," Los Angeles city councilman Richard Alarcon told the panel.

Members of the Los Angeles Police Department also appeared at the hearing, arguing that the program has been instrumental in reducing the number of accidents at traffic intersections that use the enforcement cameras.

The LAPD said Wednesday that "there have been no red light-related fatalities at any of these 32 intersections since these cameras were installed."

But Councilman Bill Rosendahl questioned the LAPD's findings, citing other reports that rear-end traffic collisions have nearly tripled at red light camera intersections.

"Since the stated goal of this program is safety, shouldn't we be looking at alternative solutions?" Rosendahl asked.

Others, like assistant city attorney Terry Martin Brown, argued for the exemption by stating that the Arizona-based contractor has an office in California and also employs Californians.

The red light cameras record traffic violations and are intended to deter people from running red lights, causing potentially fatal accidents. The program earned Los Angeles a reported $6 million in 2009. An expansion of the contract, which expires June 30, would cost the city $2.3 million.   

[kshillbillys]

I don't get how they can boycott AZ for this anyway since they have the same law on their books! 

[srkruzich]

the same way that the labor department is spending our tax dollars to adverstise and help illegals get minimum wages from the people that hire them.  This is bullsh**.

[larryJ]

Steve, this is known, in polite terms, putting one's mouth where the money is. 

Kshillbillys, California has a similar law, but not the same law.  Arizona's law states that an individual can be pulled over if an officer thinks that person might be in the country illegally.  California's law states that an individual must be pulled over for an infraction such as speeding, suspicion of DUI, running a red light, etc.  Then once the person is stopped, the officer can question their legal status in this country. 

Larryj

[Varmit]

Larry, did you actually read the arizona law?

[larryJ]

Yes, Billy, I did or I thought I did.  I did not read the amended bill nor the followup House bill.  Forgive me.  I will shut up on this particular thread.

Larryj

[Warph]

LOL... Larry, the California law is actually harder on the illegals than the AZ law except CA does not enforce it.  That's why they have 3+ million illegals in their state.  I posted the CA law sometime back and will see if I can find it again.

[Anmar]

The arizona law also allows citizens to sue law enforcement if they are not enforcing the immigration law.  As if the police down there didn't have enough to worry about.  The law also makes racial profiling illegal, which I'm sure many of you would disagree with, especially when it comes to identifying terrorists among the middle-eastern population.  Frankly, I'm not sure why the right supports this bill.  Its not well written and contains a lot of potential for people to exploit the state.

[Varmit]

If law enforcement isn't doing their job then they should be sued and removed from that job.  If they would start cracking down on some of these illegals their crime rate would drop.

[Diane Amberg]

They are afraid of them.  LEOs do as they are told by their superiors just like anybody else. Suing just gets lawyers involved, costs lots of money, takes forever and solves little. Every time a LEO has to go to court they are off the street. Tons of paperwork...off the street.  Explain how you would "crack down?"