158 replies to this topic

[folsom500]

OK Robert- this is your playground with your friends .. I start another topic to talk about the real situation of the upcoming election-- Have Fun...

[tony]

I'd be glad to read any studies not funded by Redflex or ATS or IIHS (all of whom have their hand in the camera till) that prove anything about red light cameras working. In the meantime here are a whole lot that show they don't:

• Chicago, IL (University of IL at Chicago)
• Virginia (Virginia DOT)
• Grand Prairie, Alberta (amusingly, they suggest they will fix the increased accident rate at intersections by adding speed cameras too)
• Peoria, AZ General conclusion, recommend increase length of yellow lights to reduce accidents (note slide 20 that rear-end accidents at 83rd & Tbird went up 233%). This will of course reduce revenue.
• Oxnard, CA'"The Oxnard red light camera study violates many basic principles of sound statistical public health research and lacks internal and external validity," the Florida researchers concluded.'
• Houston, TX Accidents doubled
• U. South Florida IIHS has its hand in the till... "IIHS behavior is similar to the tobacco industry in that both industries conducted their own research via a separate 'scientific' institute, which was used to advance a product despite independent research producing contrary conclusions that raise health and safety concerns."
• Stockton, CA "Between 1999 and 2003, before cameras were installed, there were an average of 14 fatal collisions each year in Stockton. After cameras were activated, fatalities climbed 47 percent to 20.7 per year between 2004 and 2006. The city, nonetheless, has declared the program a success with the city auditor suggestion a boost in the number of cameras from twelve to twenty. Since the program began July 14, 2004, Redflex has issued 21,202 tickets worth $7 million. For its services, Redflex, the Australian company in charge of red light camera ticketing, kept $1,926,672. After various state and local jurisdictions take their share, Stockton pockets $183,078 in profit each year."

And so on ad nauseum.

Meanwhile, the "profits" are going to evaporate in litigation... and also the fact that Folsom won't make money on the right turn violation anywhere there's a scoop. The city will also wind up footing the bill indirectly for all the efforts of the contractor to prevent citizens from kicking the cameras out.

Darth: You suggest a research conspiracy by the IIHS (an insurance industry group, whose members stand to save money by supporting efforts that reduce the cost and severity of traffic collisions, which, last time I checked is a pretty good thing for you and I, too) and others, yet all of your research inks are from a single anti-red light camera web site, TheNewspaper.com, which states: "This is a journal covering motoring issues around the world from a political perspective." Hardly a source of unbiased data.

But, let's look at a couple of the links. The one from Rice University on Houston did, indeed, note an increase in crashes at some intersections with cameras, but also noted that the increase was smaller than at approaches without them:
In general, the absence of an expected decrease in collisions could point to two explanations:
1) The cameras have not been effective across this group of 50 approaches; 2) The cameras are effective in reducing collisions, but this affect is a relative decrease, with the absolute number of collisions staying constant or even increasing due to other factors. We believe that this second explanation, as evidenced in decrease in the proportion of crashes occurring on cameramonitored approached, is the more accurate.

Even the Chicago study, which I regard as less than rigorous, while concluding that intersections with RLCs had an increase in crashes over non-monitored ones, noted that the incidence of "angled" crashes (the most dangerous ones, and the ones RLCs are designed to reduce), was, indeed reduced.

Perhaps most interesting, most largely quoted by Darth, and closest to home, was the Stockton study. As noted by one of the other researchers quoted, fatalities are such statistically rare events (20 or so per year in the city of Stockton) that drawing conclusions about the impact of any particular variable on fatalities is tenuous at best. The quote from the web page takes the data out of context: "Between 1999 and 2003, before cameras were installed, there were an average of 14 fatal collisions each year in Stockton. After cameras were activated, fatalities climbed 47 percent to 20.7 per year between 2004 and 2006." At best, this is misleading because the "average" before cameras showed the randomness of fatality statistics, as the actual numbers for those years were 14, 16, 9, 21 and 10, in the years 1999 to 2003, and 21, 18 and 22 in the three years after. But these were numbers for the entire city, not for intersections where RLCs were installed. At those intersections, there were no fatal crashes after installation (also statistically invalid, although a decrease from one before). Also, at the intersections with RLCs, while the total number of crashes jumped slightly (10% in the first year) before declining, the number of injuries declined over 20% in the first two years, all while traffic at these intersections increased by over 6% per year.

It is really hard to determine cause and effect with traffic measures, and really easy to misinterpret the results. But, to respond to your question, here's one study that meets your criteria (I like to start at unbiased sites, such as the FHWA, rather than one that brags that it has a political agenda). Here's what their report concludes:

* Even though the positive effects on right-angle crashes of RLC systems is partially offset by negative effects related to increases in rear end crashes, there is still a modest to moderate economic benefit of between $39,000 and $50,000 per treated site year, depending on whether one examines only injury crashes or includes PDOs, and on whether the statistically non-significant shift to slightly more severe right-angle crashes remaining after treatment is, in fact, real.
* Even if modest, this economic benefit is important. In many instances today, the RLC systems pay for themselves through red-light-running fines generated. However, in many jurisdictions, this differs from most safety treatments where there are installation, maintenance, and other costs that must be weighed against the treatment benefits.
* The modest benefit per site is an average over all sites. As the analysis of factors that impact showed, this benefit can be increased through careful selection of the sites to be treated (e.g., sites with a high ratio of right-angle to rear end crashes as compared to other potential treatment sites) and program design (e.g., high publicity, signing at both intersections and jurisdiction limits).

[Robert Giacometti]

Robert - you obsession with this is getting Old--- It was done and we lost some money in doing it- OK ? Bad decisions do occur but PLEASE - let this rest -- it has little to do with now polluted topic and you yourself have done nothing to add to it.
Let is go man- or start a new thread " Robert Hates the fact that the City sold out cheap"
OK ???
Cheers
F500

This issue is directly realted to the future of our City! I'm pleased that you and others are accepting we got the short end on this deal. The very same 4 council members who cut this deal are now negotiating with the land owners for annexation on S50 and telling us we need to protect our borders from other agencies.

These same Council members have cut another deal by only charging the landowners S50 a reduced rate for all the planning costs for S50, to the point we are using general fund money to increase the amount of profit for the land owners, while we are laying off staff at City Hall while reducing services for ourselves!

These same city council members also cut the deal with Aerojet giving away our priority water righst off the American River so Areojet could develop its property with OUR water!

It amazes me that so many are allowing their personal relationship affect their ability to see right from wrong regarding decisions for our City and its future!

You are on the wrong side my friend, join the citizens who aren't going to allow our City Council to continue to give away our quality of life to the special interests! You can make a difference this November by NOT voting for the Council members who are doing this!

That is what this is all about!

[Steve Heard]

You sure are twisting things aren't you? I've had people ask me how much you are getting paid for helping keep this quiet. I've told them I don't know why you are helping by twisting things and muddling up the facts of the deal.

Man, this gets goofier by the minute! If anyone's paying me to keep it quiet they should ask for a refund, 'cause I'm doing a lousy job! I'm discussing it on a public forum and encouraging you to call the press and the FBI. Real quiet, huh?


I thought you and I agreed with the facts of the deal in that the City Council sold surplus land for $7 milion and the buyer flipped shortly afterwards for $21 million. The City could have sold it directly to the developer for the $21 million and then the residents would have gotten $21 million for our asset instead of the $7 million. Either you are OK with this or your not, which one is it?

I don't know that we'd call it an 'agreement', but you and I seem to have heard, not seen proof of, but heard similar stories, that the city sold a piece of land for $7 million, and that the buyer later sold it to someone else for a handsome profit.

Are you suggesting that John Laing Homes, $21 million buyer, offered or would have offered his $21 million to the city of Folsom if given the chance, but that our friends on the city council blocked that so they could sell it to their friend for $14 million less and hope that the otherwise diligent citizens of Folsom would never find out? Why would they do that? What was in it for them? Re-election?


I think its silly to allow those who are making misrepresentations to continue without being challenged!


Hey, we do agree on something! Where's your proof, as you are so fond of asking?


I still don't know why I should be challenging Steve, Andy or Jeff about statements Kerri made. Can you explain that to me?

If you truly do believe that our city council did something illegal, immoral or just plain blunderous (is that a word?), to the tune of $14 million, surely they should all be asked to explain. Capeche?


What side are you on, the side that is trying to cover up this poor deal where the residents got screwed or the side that isn't going to allow our elected officials to continue to give away these sweetheart deals at our expense any more?

I'm on the side of truth. If you have proof that there was a conspiracy by our city council to make a secret, no-bid deal to sell a property for 1/3 of its value to enrich 1 guy and screw the rest of the population, show me proof and I'm right with you, demanding answers and accountability. The difference is that I'll demand they all get called out on the carpet, not just one of them.

[Robert Giacometti]

Steve, can you point out where I have ever said ONLY one council member should be held accountable for this vote on the sale of the surplus land? You and some others are saying that, but I don't think I have ever said that or believe that.

I don't know the motives of why our Council members sold land to a developer, when they probably knew the developer was going to resell it at a significant profit. The motive isn't the issue, the issue is these FOUR remaining council members did it and in the process passed up on an opportiunity to get more value for its Residents. Clearly this isn't looking out for the residents best interests is it?

Do you really believe NONE of these council members or the former City Manager knew there was a difference between values of vacant land and land that had entitlements on it?

You claim you have asked people at the city about this, have you ever asked how mnay bidders were invited? Have you ever asked where were the bids advertised? If you are really motivated to get the whole story out there or get to the truth, why not ask the city these questions and share it with everyone? It seems to many you are asking selective questions designed to mislead and not the ones that might eliminate any doubt anyone still has.

Either you are contributing to muddying the waters and trying to coverup what happened or you are working to expose the truth on this deal?

Based upon the numerous discussiosn I've had with many people regading this subject, I gotta tell you, you are not gaining lot of credibility with your comments. There are many people reading this forum who don't post and its becoming very clear to them who is on what side.

Its pretty obvious to most we the citizens get screwed on this deal!

[camay2327]

Robert, I think that right now, Steve has a lot more credibility than you do. Why don't you bring up something new for a change. I think that the most of us are just tired of you bringing up the same old stuff over and over and over.

[ducky]

I'm not real good at understanding innuendo, what is it you are claiming then? What is motivating you to ask this question, did you think of this on your own or is someone whispering in your ear? You are being used Ducky, its too bad you don't see it!

Since Stevethedad and I agree that the city sold a $7 million parcel of land and the buyer flipped shortly afterwards for $21 million, how does that make you feel? Are you able to understand that the City could have sold it directly to the Home builder and we the citizens could have gotten the full $21 million?

What side are you on, the side that is working to help keep this quiet or the side that isn't going to allow these things to occur anymore?

Thanks a lot, Robert. You don't think I can formulate a question on my own. Well, I'm bright enough to notice you didn't answer the question, or the other question I posed before, which kind of is an answer in itself. I've really tried to see where you are coming from on this over the years. You keep talking about people letting personalities and emotions get in the way and you are so blinded by your hatred that you can't even see your own hypocrisy. Please don't feel the need to reply. Let's just agree to disagree.

[Steve Heard]

Steve, can you point out where I have ever said ONLY one council member should be held accountable for this vote on the sale of the surplus land? You and some others are saying that, but I don't think I have ever said that or believe that.

I don't know the motives of why our Council members sold land to a developer, when they probably knew the developer was going to resell it at a significant profit. The motive isn't the issue, the issue is these FOUR remaining council members did it and in the process passed up on an opportiunity to get more value for its Residents. Clearly this isn't looking out for the residents best interests is it?

Do you really believe NONE of these council members or the former City Manager knew there was a difference between values of vacant land and land that had entitlements on it?

You claim you have asked people at the city about this, have you ever asked how mnay bidders were invited? Have you ever asked where were the bids advertised? If you are really motivated to get the whole story out there or get to the truth, why not ask the city these questions and share it with everyone? It seems to many you are asking selective questions designed to mislead and not the ones that might eliminate any doubt anyone still has.

Either you are contributing to muddying the waters and trying to coverup what happened or you are working to expose the truth on this deal?

Based upon the numerous discussiosn I've had with many people regading this subject, I gotta tell you, you are not gaining lot of credibility with your comments. There are many people reading this forum who don't post and its becoming very clear to them who is on what side.

Its pretty obvious to most we the citizens get screwed on this deal!

I'm not concerned with the private discussions you've been having with others about the matter, nor am I interested in discussing which of us has the most credibility.

You've made some serious allegations here.

If you believe a crime, or at least a great blunder, was committed, please present your case with verifiable facts.

I understand that the sale was a matter of public record, so you can go down to city hall and make a records request. You will either be able to say 'I told you so', or not.

When you obtain such evidence, I'll be glad to engage in conversation with you about it, but until then, sadly, you'll have to continue your crusade without me.

Good luck with that!

[Robert Giacometti]

Thanks a lot, Robert. You don't think I can formulate a question on my own. Well, I'm bright enough to notice you didn't answer the question, or the other question I posed before, which kind of is an answer in itself. I've really tried to see where you are coming from on this over the years. You keep talking about people letting personalities and emotions get in the way and you are so blinded by your hatred that you can't even see your own hypocrisy. Please don't feel the need to reply. Let's just agree to disagree.

I didn't understand what it was you were asking. Can you clarify your question?

I was sorry to read what you wrote, applying a label of hatred onto someone is pretty severe. People who know me know I don't hate anybody or anything. Your message came across as someone who was cornered, like they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

The majority of us are tired of the underhanded, behind the scenes dealings going on in this town and want to make a change. This is a cancer that needs to be eradicated. Fortunately more and more people who know what has been going on are now willing to come forward to expose the very BS that I've been talking about. Its sad that as people come forward to expose the truth, that some just want to shoot the messenger to prevent the truth from coming out. This isn't about personalities like you think, its about right or wrong and what is best for the city going forward.

I'll tell you exactly where I'm coming from, Selling a $21 million parcel of land for $7 million isn't what is best for our city, giving away our water off the American River to Aerojet for their reclaimed water isn't what is best for our City and allowing the landowners S50 get away with NOT paying for all the planning costs isn't what is best for our City and the Council member who is most responsible for leading the misrepresentation of what is going on, isn't what is best for our city as well.

I'm sorry you can't see how you are being used. When you realize this you will be sorry, but don't worry I don't hold grudges and don't hate anything.

[ducky]

I didn't understand what it was you were asking. Can you clarify your question?

I was sorry to read what you wrote, applying a label of hatred onto someone is pretty severe. People who know me know I don't hate anybody or anything. Your message came across as someone who was cornered, like they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

The majority of us are tired of the underhanded, behind the scenes dealings going on in this town and want to make a change. This is a cancer that needs to be eradicated. Fortunately more and more people who know what has been going on are now willing to come forward to expose the very BS that I've been talking about. Its sad that as people come forward to expose the truth, that some just want to shoot the messenger to prevent the truth from coming out. This isn't about personalities like you think, its about right or wrong and what is best for the city going forward.

I'll tell you exactly where I'm coming from, Selling a $21 million parcel of land for $7 million isn't what is best for our city, giving away our water off the American River to Aerojet for their reclaimed water isn't what is best for our City and allowing the landowners S50 get away with NOT paying for all the planning costs isn't what is best for our City and the Council member who is most responsible for leading the misrepresentation of what is going on, isn't what is best for our city as well.

I'm sorry you can't see how you are being used. When you realize this you will be sorry, but don't worry I don't hold grudges and don't hate anything.

Holy cow, Robert. Could you be more patronizing. I'm not being used by anyone. You are assuming I have way more contact with Kerri than I actually do. You have absolutely no idea who I'm voting for.

If somebody's hand is caught in the cookie jar it's yours.
I'll try and be a little more elementary in my question.

After all these years of huffing and puffing, are you telling me you've never gone into the city clerk's office and filled out a form called a public records request asking for the RFP document that you've been going on and on about? The way you've portrayed it is that it doesn't exist. How do you know that if you haven't done an appropriate request?


Like stevethedad says, if you gather the documents and have written proof to back up your serious allegations, I'm more than willing to listen as I've said many times before. In the meantime, quit asking me to come out of the shadows and pick a side and be a part of defamation, slander, or libel when I have no basis in fact other than your constant regurgitations here.

[Dave Burrell]

Like stevethedad says, if you gather the documents and have written proof to back up your serious allegations, I'm more than willing to listen as I've said many times before. In the meantime, quit asking me to come out of the shadows and pick a side and be a part of defamation, slander, or libel when I have no basis in fact other than your constant regurgitations here.

Ditto what you said

[Robert Giacometti]

you know this 14 million dollar land deal could be a lismus test on whether the people of folsom give a whoot what the city council did and with whom. if folks can't get excite about a possilbe corrked/mismanaged black and white land deal what can they get excited about

old rober said there were just tow folks allowed to bid on the land, you would assume the one that lost probably knew the prize was a steal and they probably shed a few tears about the deal going the other way. I guess folks that were not allowed to even participate in the bidding would also be upset and you would wonder why they didn't squawk

Good points old soldier!

You might recall I was a candidate for the city council during this time frame. I heard from THREE different parties who were squawking they were being shut out of the process. This is how I first heard about the deal, then confirmed this through different sources at City Hall. One told me they couldn't make too much noise, because there was the possibility they might have issues the council might have to act on, so they kept quiet for fear of retalition.

I could use your wisdom on this, why didn't John Laing Homes, the eventual home builder submit a bid through the RFP that nobody can find. Why wouldn't they submit a bid to buy something at 67% off the going price at the time?

This doesn't make any sense to me, so I nee dyour help or maybe fiesty Kerri could explain why.

[Dave Burrell]

This doesn't make any sense to me, so I nee dyour help or maybe fiesty Kerri could explain why.

Have you tried asking Steve or Andy?

[Robert Giacometti]

Have you tried asking Steve or Andy?

Great idea, if Steve Miklos or Andy Morin are on this forum, if they could answer this question we all would appreciate it.