Soil and Codes

The city council has soil testing on the agenda next Tuesday. They will decide if soil testing will be the policy for all new subdivisions. This is a needed step in the right direction, but still doesn't completely address the failure at 3008 Clearview. There are still a lot of unanswered questions.

First off, we already had a soil test that said this location had expansive soils which means R403.1.8 of the International Residential Code applies. That sends us to section 1805.8 of the International Building Code. When you get over to Section 1805.8 of the International Building Code list four methods to design foundations for expansive soil. The key word here is “ designed” ie there must be design documents showing that the proposed foundation is suitable for the soil. Documents from someone trained to design foundations as in an engineer.

Bottom line is someone in the city government had to approve the plans for the foundation and that foundation was not suitable for the soil and the area. This should have been caught before the building permit was issued. A foundation designed by a professional engineer should have been required. The proposed policy change is a step in the right direction but needs some fine tuning.

We do have to be careful. We don't want to deal with building codes and related issues in a piecemeal manner. The different codes the city has adopted amount to a few thousand pages that are filled with technical and legal jargon and expansive soil is covered in less than 10. There are lots of potential problems where engineers, architects, and other experts should be involved. The city manager said at the last council meeting “there are things we know and things we don't know”, and that's true but that means they need to get better at doing the research, investigations, reviews, and inspections so they know enough to prevent or at least mitigate problems such as these. The policy should be if in doubt, find out. That's just part of protecting our citizens.

One last point needs to be emphasized: just because a home was properly designed and built for expansive soils doesn't mean there won't be issues in the future. My research has shown that buildings on expansive soil require special attention and handling throughout their life. Simple things like improper lawn watering can shorten the life of a foundation and improper installation and use of irrigation systems, swimming pools, gardens, and guttering can lead to major problems with the foundation and eventual building failure. The city needs to make sure that homeowners know if they are living on expansive soil, and they need to make information available on what to do (and not to do) when dealing with expansive soils.

3008 Clearview Part 2

This is the rest of the discussion at last weeks council meeting. You might want to watch the video in the previous post first.

There is additional information here on the Homeowners of Texas site. Bottom line, this home site required special handling because it has expansive soil. This type of soil is very sensitive to moisture content and will swell and shrink as the water content varies. This puts a great deal of stress on a foundation and can lead to early failure. The International Residential Code and International Building code, which our city and the state of Texas have adopted as the baseline building code require special handling for expansive soils. Copies of these codes as adopted by various states can be downloaded here but be warned: these are several hundred pages.

Bottom line, the city can make a case that testing was not specifically required at this site. After all, it had already been done in 2004. They can't get by the fact that these building codes require special handling for foundations in areas of known expansive soil. They dropped the ball and didn't do that.

There is not much we can do for the Montgomeries now but we need to get on top of this because there are many homes in the city that are potentially at risk. Living in a home built on expansive soils requires special care. Simple things like where you plant a garden or how a swimming pool is built or how you water the lawn or use gutters and down spouts all impact expansive soils and the foundation of a home. We need to alert homeowners to the potential problems they face.

Crystal Ball Time

ConchoInfo has been up and operational for just over 5 years. At this time of year we seem to have too much time on our hands and attend too many festivities so we have a habit of firing up the crystal balls to see what we can see from the past and maybe the future.

Five years ago, water rates and sources were definitely major concerns. Water rates were going up. No way to stop it. Luckily, the City Council managed to eliminate a roughly $1,000,000 drain from the water fund to the general fund called Pilot. They also implemented a tiered meter fee which more equitably spread the cost across all the users. The major search for long term water was still in the future, but one of the few justifiable parts of the half cent sales tax was money for a long term water source. Water has been pretty constantly in the news since then and will continue to be as far as we can see in the future. We have started a capital improvement plan that prevented a recent 16” main break from being a major catastrophe like it was in 2006. This time instead of killing 2/3rds of the city's water and the majority of retail businesses, we mostly heard complaints that a mostly precautionary boil notice wasn't seen by absolutely everyone in the area. The outage was confined to a smaller area for about half a day. Infrastructure is still a major problem, and the city still needs to improve, but we are much better today than we were 3 years ago. Our city will have to keep spending major money to fix our infrastructure. Besides water, most of the utility services in the city, including those of private utilities, need work. Lots of work.

Our searches for water sources have made major progress in the last few years. Probably a million dollars of sales tax money has been spent testing various well fields and possible drilling sites. The ones west of here are not usable so far. Everyone expected the water to be brackish (i.e. salty) but no one expected the very fine sand/silt that makes pumping this water in any volume infeasible today. We are moving forward with the Hickory field but I don't see this a complete long term solution. Hickory already has a number of other users and is likely being lusted after by San Antonio. In addition, the recharge rate of Hickory is not all that fast. Hickory is a good resource but not a complete solution. We need to keep looking. We also need to work on area partnerships. Water is not just a San Angelo problem. All of our neighbors are in the same boat, and if they are hurt by water shortages so are we.

Elections have changed a lot in the last few years. In 2006 we got a new elections administrator and new equipment. Problems started early and continued for the rest of the year. After some bad international publicity over a poorly run election and recount, the election administrator resigned under fire. The new one, Vona McKerley started with basically a clean slate and a new year. She provided leadership and sought outside help from a number of citizens of all parties and political persuasions. The improvements have been steady, impressive, and largely taken for granted. She has recruited a wonderful staff, improved procedures for all election workers, and recruited a citizens committee that grew up to be the Tom Green County Elections Support Association, a one of a kind advisory committee with members of all political persuasions that work together for great elections. The process is now working so well and people are working so hard that from the outsides the elections look easy. I have heard several reporters praising the fact they could get the results in time for the 10:00pm New broadcasts. The last complaint I heard was that the early results cut the election night party too short. Watch closely or you won't notice the incremental upgrades that are being made to the system. In the future expect to be able to cast your vote at any polling place.

The lack of problems in the election system has been made up for by recent elections themselves. Voters turned down the first school bond in the history of the city. Wasn't even close. The boards campaign that focused on maintenance failures was the best campaign material the opposition could have hoped for. The major shift from the beloved downtown campus to a southern site that no one seemed to like or understand. It took about a year to get a plan that the voters could support, and even there only one of the two issues passed. I will have much more to say on this in the future but quite frankly I have been frustrated by the current board. I'm waiting for some new blood to show up, but it will likely be a long wait.

We had a successful charter review and most of the needed changes were passed. The appointed chief proposal was defeated again and I am happy with that result. The previous attempt at an appointed chief hadn't even been pushed by the people that put it on the ballot. It was, in reality, a maneuver to delay charter review. After we presented the information to the voters on the various needed changes they made their decisions with much better information than was available before, including a televised debate. There was an unintentional side effect of one of the defeated measures that council members lost insurance coverage but for the most part we passed needed updates to the charter. Best part: We made capital improvements a permanent part of the budget process. They can still ignore capital maintenance, but it will be much harder now.

The last chiefs election was very interesting. If you like politics as theater, then this was your election. There were a large number of candidates, strong language, flame wars on the Standard Times readers comments, and various hints of scandal including one minor ethics violation fine. In the end, Chief Vasquez won the race without needing a recount. A case for study in grass roots politcs.

The last Mayors race continued the trend. The election itself was almost a non-event with neither of his opponents a serious threat. The count was done early, the process was going along smoothly until JW resigned from Mexico instead of showing up to take the oath of office. Still don't understand what he was thinking, but the special election it caused gave us the longest, most expensive Mayors race this city has ever had. Thankfully we will be able to start the new year with a full council. We will wait and see how this Christmas present to the city plays out in the long run.

Public safety has been in constant motion over the past few years. When ConchoInfo started, a faith based prison was being proposed. We still think that Faith Based programs and Prison Industry have a significant place programs that reduce recidivism and prison crowding. We still don't understand why we have the highest incarceration rate on the planet. On the other hand we were smart not to buy into the snake oil that was being peddled by CCI. Our community is better off for dodging that bullet.

There is one trend in public safety we need to take a close look at. Tom Green County had 9 murders in 2009, up from 5 in 2008 and 1 in 2007. I have to agree with Chief Vasquez: this is not a failure of law enforcement and the police department. There little the police could do except cleanup the mess after the fact and help bring the guilty to justice. At the same time, these crimes are the canaries in the coal mine. There is something problematic in the social atmosphere. Most were senseless acts. There were warnings of a sort for some of the cases. A history of erratic or nasty behavior that wasn't seen as more than annoying and slightly crazy. Nothing that police or courts could act on. It's not illegal to be crazy, thank God. Still, we need to really stop and sample the community atmosphere. There is something in the air. We need to find out what it is.

There is much more on the Crystal Ball, but the low battery signal is flashing so I need to stop here. These are my observations for this time of year. Jim Ryans are already up as well. We both agree that it will be an interesting future and San Angelo is a great place to spend it.

Walking around town

San Angelo has been shaken awake recently. There have been two pedestrian fatalities. This caused the issue of sidewalks to be brought back before the City Council with little notice or citizen input. This issue had been very much overwhelmed by issues such as the storm water mandates, and hadn't been looked at much for almost 2 years. The council and staff are quite open about how this happened.

At the last council meeting, the staff brought the council some ideas on a sidewalk ordinance for new developments. The discussion went on about sidewalks, and old neighborhoods, and commercial districts, etc. until someone finally reminded them that the real issue here is not just sidewalks. This is about transportation and safety.

For years (pretty much since WWII), transportation has been reduced to motorized transportation. Cars, truck, trains and planes: That was the only transportation that mattered. We were in love with our cars. Mom and the kids would hop into the station wagon and drive the half block to the neighborhood store. Neighborhood stores vanished from many neighborhoods, and by the 90's, the mall, an island of stores in a sea of parking spaces, was the new hunting ground for the SUV and the family. Entire neighborhoods were built where the front door was only used to get the mail or for special occasions. People drove out of their privacy fence protected garages onto alleys that were only usable as extended driveways. Neighbors had to make an effort to see each other outside of their cars. This is far different than the neighborhoods of the early 1900's, when towns were laid out so that everyone could walk to work, and sidewalks were a luxury to keep mud off shoppers feet. Many towns had sidewalks before paved streets, at least down town, because foot traffic was the major form of transportation.

Times are changing again. People are becoming health conscious, and realize that riding everywhere contributes to obesity. They have realized that using the SUV for a quick trip to the convenience store wastes a lot of money when gas prices are as high as they were (and will be again.) People are starting to think that polluting less by driving less might not be such a bad idea. Many neighborhoods actually like it that their kids can walk to school. Just look at the results of the last 2 bond elections for confirmation. And some people are actually discovering that when they walk through their neighborhood, they have time to actually meet and talk to their neighbors. They get to participate in that friendliness that west Texas is famous for.

With all this new found interest in non-motorized transportation, problems are showing up in many areas of the city. San Angelo is not a very walkable city. Ideally, you should be able to walk from any place in the city to any other place in the city safely. Throw in public transportation (buses primarily) and you should be able to shop and conduct most business without a car, provided you have enough time. This is currently not the case. Not even close. Just for fun, try to get to the CVCOG office (just off loop 306) or the SAISD administration building by walking and using the bus. It can be done, but it won't be an excellent adventure.

We need a new approach to transportation and transportation planning that includes non-motorized, non-vehicular transportation as a major component. When a plan for a new development is submitted, it should account for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, as well as cars and trash and emergency vehicles. That may mean sidewalks or pedestrian lanes, crosswalks, tunnels, overpasses, etc.. New development plans should show more than just how cars leave the area. They should show foot paths to schools, shopping, parks, churches, etc.. When neighborhoods are revitalized, all forms of traffic need to be addressed. We need sidewalks on some streets, such as 19th and 29th, but we also need a plan so people can safely walk to those sidewalks. Sounds like one of the first challenges for our traffic engineer once he is on board.

Let me make one thing clear: the city hasn't been ignoring this problem. They have done a fairly comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian plan in the SAMPO. It is a good starting point. The problem is that it is currently not part of regular, day to day transportation planning. That is one of the goals of the plan, but the reality is that we're not close yet. One only had to listen to the discussion at the last council meeting to see that. It is obvious that we haven't brought developers on board yet. The city has also a number of projects competing for limited engineering resources so when the storm water wheel squeaked, it got the priority.

Transportation in our city is changing. We must become more pedestrian and bicycle friendly, or at least less dangerous and hostile. We need a plan that in addition to pedistrian districts, includes pedestrian feeders, connectors, and arteries, just like we have for motor vehicle traffic. We need an integrated plan where pedestrians are not an afterthought or footnote. Sidewalks will be a part of any pedestrian planning, but they are just a tool like crosswalks and signs and lanes, etc.. Pedestrian safety won't be achieved until from start to finish, pedestrians are as much a part of any transportation and traffic planning as automobiles.

Animal Limit City Council Timeline

The following is a time line of City Council meetings where a dog limit and changes to the animal control ordinance have been discussed since the first mention of limits on the number of animals in 2006.

June 20, 2006

First discussion of Animal limits.

November 7, 2006

Further discussion of Animal control issues. First discussion of a possible breeders
permit.

February 6, 2007

Further discussion of animal control, with discussion of breeders license fees and other related fees. Ross(sic) Jacoby spoke against breeders licenses or permits, and suggested using existing laws. It was noted that only 33% of owners license pets.

March 20, 2007

Discussion of draft ordinance on animal limits submitted. Motion to bring back ordinance limiting total dogs to 6 passed 4-3. Motion prohibiting sale, trade, or transfer of animals on public property passed 5-3

April 3, 2007

First public hearing to limit number of dogs to 6 failed by a 3-4 vote.

Judge Gilbert stated there were existing laws that would address the issues presented, and commented on the lengthy process to address such a complaint.

Staff was directed to bring back a comprehensive rewrite of the animal control ordinances.

July 17,2007

Revisions to the animal control ordinances were approved to be put in ordinance form for a future council meeting. This included the increasing the number of animal control officers from 3 to 5.

Mike Loving reiterated the issues are in the enforcement of the ordinances, not the number of animals.

September 4, 2007

First public hearing of a comprehensive amendment of the animal services ordinance is held and passed unanimously. No limit on the number of animals is included.

September 18, 2007

Second public hearing on the animal services ordinance amendments passes unanimously as part of the consent agenda.

Government Theater

If you pay much attention to government in action, you get to see a lot of what is called Theater. These are actions and laws done mostly for show and to make people feel a problem is being handled. Close inspection shows they are ineffective, and often make the problem they were supposed to solve worse. Security theater is probably the most common example..

The City Council will have a bit of theater on the agenda on 19th. There is a proposed ordinance to limit the number of dogs one can have on a residential property. They are proposing a limit of 6 dogs, with exemptions for "recognized rescuers" (who can have up to 9 altered dogs), and one litter for 12 weeks. This is classic Government theater. This is not the first time this has been before council. We have followed this since 2006. This started because there are inconsiderate people that don't know how to care for dogs and think that a small residential yard is the proper place to have a puppy mill.

These people are already violating noise and public nuisance ordinances. There are probably health code violations. There may be zoning violations (incompatible business), etc..

When this was brought up the first time, we did some research and found very little support for dog number limits. The AVMA, in its model ordinance, does recommend special permits for breeders and similar businesses, but recommends no hard limits for private ownership. The key part of the ordinance is under owner responsibility and says "No dog or cat shall be allowed to cause a nuisance. The owner of every dog or cat shall be held responsible for every behavior of such dog or cat under the provisions of this ordinance." There are similar recommendations from the AKC, SFSPCA, and most other animal welfare groups. If you look at the discussions on animallaw.info and nokillnow, there are cases where fixed limits have been found to be un-constitutional limits on property and due process. The city does have a legitimate right to regulate nuisances, but other cases have shown that a certain number of dogs does not necessarily create a nuisance.

Now we come to the heart of the matter, the problem this theater is supposed to address. There are people that are being denied the peaceful enjoyment of their homes because some people refuse to properly care for their animals. In some cases, it is an inconsiderate breeder just trying to make some easy money. In other cases, it is one dog that is allowed to destroy property, strew trash and garbage, and generally create havoc because the owner is lazy and irresponsible. The people that are being irresponsible and creating nuisances today will not suddenly comply with a new law. We are not effectively enforcing what's on the books today so why will that change with an additional law we still don't have the manpower to enforce. In the end, it is all for show. It's just a case of Government Theater.

Budget Machinations

I am glad I withheld my initial reaction to the July 15 Council meeting When Chief Vasquez dropped his "20% pay raise" budget bombshell. Let me say before anything else, I am glad the officers got the raise. In a gosanangelo.com comment that day, I predicted they would get 7, maybe 10%, deservedly so. Where do I keep misplacing that Karnak turban?

The process was ugly, no two ways about it. I have spoken to most of Council since, I can reliably report "stunned" would be an understatement. This was not a reasoned negotiation, this was a parliamentary mugging. Only the Mayor and Councilmembers Farmer and Silvas spoke that day. Farmer took the time to do the math and state a dollar amount and expressed her shock that Chief Vasquez seemed to expect Council to act that day absent any prior notice. Mr. Silvas, the "new kid on the block" went into a statement which, while trying to offend no one, he agreed really boiled down to, "Why the heck am I hearing about this for the first time today?". Other members told me they had stayed silent because they were so angry at this "ambush" they did not trust themselves not to say something they would later regret.

It is a safe consensus, our public safety personnel got this raise in spite of, not because of, the Vasquez presentation.

I have watched the video of that meeting several times. Jerry Sea, of the WTOS and NAACP spoke for the raise, but mentioned "This is the best City Council we have ever had". I wholeheartedly agree, 30 years of seeing them come and go, some tried, some flat lied to us, and current Council is dealing with problems unfairly dumped on them. This I state plainly: Council AND staff (we also, in my opinion, have the best City Manager we've ever had) passed a small miracle in this new budget.

Council, by ordinance and Charter change, has made the budget process more responsible and transparent than ever before. This Council did not deserve the ambush Vasquez set for them. It is to Council's credit that they overlooked the political insult and gave our officers what they rated.

Understand, we have a significant change in local government. I was in the trenches against the "ol' boy club". Folks, that is done. The oldest "rats in the barn" are Mayor Lown and Councilman Morrison, each starting their third. They are part of the cats who ran the rats OUT of the barn.

Capital Improvements is one such; we moved this, with approval of the voters, from ordinance and procedure, to required by Charter. It is new, as is the SAPD "Meet and Confer" process. In the process, some time will be lost as the bureaucrats set rules by which they play. I am inclined to give all parties, City Manager, Police Chief, City Council, a good amount of latitude for the mechanics of making reforms effective.

All that said, the cops got a raise, the Council dodged a bullet, this is as good a chance as Council will ever have to say "OK, Rookie mistakes get a pass BUT...never again". God's honest, a lot of people spent a lot of time and trouble making these budget reforms come to pass. Not picking on SAPD's somewhat unique position with an elected Chief, EVERY city department needs to be put on notice, get your requests in on time, with numbers to support them, or you will be SOL until the next year's budget.

The Fourth, Fireworks, and Freedom

I have been remiss in posting here. My Holiday weekend was not quite the leisure time I hoped for, between plumbing, reprogramming the household Dish and my favorite, electrical shorts in my ancient pickup, I have not had much time. Lord, give me a simple bolt-turning head gasket any day over chasing electrical "ghosts in the machine". Yes, I got it, but try finding a schematic for a 77 F-150. And it lies to you, keep a test light handy.

I'm getting old and impatient, I stayed home and watched the Macy's, then the Boston Pops fireworks. As much as I love this most ephemeral of art forms, I just wasn't up to the traffic this year. Nice surprise, just as the Pops was winding down, I stepped outside. The distant thunder from Nasworthy alerted me, and by gosh, I got to see at least the high shells from my roof. Congratulations to everybody who helped make it happen, very impressive. Made me wish I'd gone to the trouble, there is no way the best plasma screen captures the bass vibration of a live show. In 1976, I spent all day securing a very crowded spot for the Bicentennial fireworks in DC, base of the Washington Monument. BTW, on the Boston Pops, I couldn't help but think: I hope there is an especially warm seat reserved in the after-life for the ad exec who assured that no one in my generation will ever, so long as we live, be able to hear the "1812 Overture" without thinking of breakfast cereal. If you are young enough not to know what I'm talking about, you don't want to know.

The question of "patriotism" is much in the news. I am an American patriot. I am not a "My country, right or wrong" patriot, and I don't think basic patriotism has a damned thing to do with lapel flag pins. As I do every year, I reviewed our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The latter is a grand total of four pages of sheepskin, plus Amendments. It is an astounding document and has resulted in an astounding Republic.

We are far from perfect, and maintaining the vision requires our continual attention. As Franklin was quoted, "we have given you a Republic; if you can keep it". (OK, Franklin was an inveterate self-promoter, may have made that up post-facto, but it's still a good line and at the time, he set the type and paid for the ink.)

In comparison to any other government, given the choice, I pick America. Proof being in the pudding, so do millions of immigrants, legal or otherwise. Going to my heritage, almost 50 million Americans check "Irish" as their ethnic identity on the census. Did you know that Ireland, even post-"Troubles" is still the 3rd largest source of "undocumented" aliens? All our faults, we must be doing something right.

Shifting gears from the grandiose to the mundane and coming back to a local focus: The Standard-Times has afforded ink to two people, State Rep Crownover and one Dr. Fazen in favor of making the entire state of Texas "non-smoking". Our Police Chief has proposed, and Council is considering, an ordinance to force gasoline retailers to mandate "pre-pay" to avoid gasoline drive-off theft.

I, for one, think it ironic that these two mandates on business decisions come on the eve of Independence Day and a celebration of freedom.

As to the first, smoking: San Angelo already has a ban on smoking in all gov't buildings. My rough estimate, over 90% of businesses ban smoking, one assumes in deference to their customers' wishes. About the only commercial establishments to allow smoking are some restaraunts, and all beer-joints, again, one assumes, in deference to their client's wishes. My S-T handle of "barkeep" is not an affectation, I have worked that trade many years. I invite Rep. Crownover and Dr. Fazen to this challenge: Put up your own money in any jurisdiction allowing smoking in bars and open a non-smoking bar. Pay the license and taxes, hire the best band in town, advertize it in every outlet available and wait for your non-smoking customers. And wait, and wait. I have NEVER seen a non-smoking bar make it financially unless all the competitors were forced to go non-smoking by law.

A stronger case could be made if non-smokers could point to a single place they could not avoid of their own choice and not have to suffer the evil fumes. Freedom includes implicitly the freedom to make foolish choices; or not.

Gas drive-offs: Yes, it is theft, outright theft. And that makes it an ordinance issue how? Chief Vasquez "estimates" between $9,000 and $18,000 annually in "staffing "costs to deal with (his figures) 284 offenses since Jan. First, it would be nice if the ballpark pricetag had less than 100% wiggle room, makes it sound like a top-of-the-head guess. Second, that figure at the high end is a negligible less than one tenth of a percent of SAPD budget. Third, police departments everywhere prioritize resources. A bank robbery or homicide, everybody turns out. A misdemeanor, class B or otherwise, sometimes that's "Hey, we'll get to it when we get to it". At least that's the way the very reasonable, sympathetic, but realistic officer described it to me last time I reported a home burglary.

Seems to me, SAPD doesn't have to roll out "Code Blue" every time a convenience store has a drive-off, and maybe if they didn't, the retailer might rethink his own security measures instead of using SAPD as a private "collection agency".

I'm with Councilman Morrison on this one: Pre-pay or not should be a business decision, made by the business owner. Frankly, if it were my business, I would make the decision case by case. Some locations are inherently more easy to drive off from. Investments in cameras, extra clerks and policy ought be left to the business owner, and the consequences as well.

I try to avoid conspiracy theories. I don't own a tin-foil hat and I have no idea who may have been on the grassy knoll. This one does sniff as though there were perhaps a major local gas retailer(s) who would like to go "pre-pay" without suffering any disadvantage from another, more trusting or better prepared competitor. If the City Council can be hornswoggled into doing the dirty work, the retailers get to hang out a sign apologetically blaming the pre-pay two-step on Council without suffering any adverse competition. After all, it would only affect those lower class customers without the "plastic" option, and they don't really count in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Oops, almost forgot, they still get to vote, don't they? Every May, best I recall. Recall, a word Councilmembers are well advised to keep in mind.

Hope you had a better Fourth than mine, but I can't really beef about it. The toilet flushes, the truck runs, and I still live in the greatest nation in history.

1 2 3 Red Light

Lubbock is giving us some interesting insights on how many cities view red light cameras. They recently received a report on the first 6 months of operation. The results are so bad, the committee charged with overseeing the program is recommending it be discontinued. It is apparent that the cameras are not really improving public safety. Accidents at intersections with cameras are up by 52% while accidents at other intersections are down by 2.7%. The number of injuries is down, but one commenter on the study said that could be due to a number of factors, including the number of passengers in each vehicle. Right out of the gate, their program seems to be failing, and deserves to be discontinued. The problem is that they will discontinue it for the wrong reasons.

It was obvious from the start that Lubbock did it for the money. They ignored re-engineering an intersection (which includes adjusting yellow light timing) as an option. When they found that only 4 of the 14 most dangerous intersections would have the needed 20 citations per day to be profitable, they looked at 12 additional intersections with no real history of accidents. This was put on hold after it was found out that 8 of the twelve intersections had yellow lights shorter than they should be, with one being shorter than legal minimums. Recent changes in Texas law derailed Lubbock's original plans.

With 7300 citations per intersection a year needed to be profitable, I have to wonder what the costs of installation and operation for such a system must be. At the State mandated maximum of $75 per citation, that means each intersection would generate a gross revenue of $547,500.00 per year. With 14 "profitable"intersections, that is a total revenue of $7.66 million per year. Lubbock anticipated a net revenue of $2 million per year, which meant that $5.66 million a year were needed to run the operation and pay the vendor $3.3 million in five years.

Update: After reading some of this material again, I find that the 20 citations/day may not be per intersection, but the total break even point, where the city isn't making money yet. With the cities goal of $2 million in "revenue" (i.e. profits), that is still around 36,000 citations per year, or roughly 7 per intersection at 14 intersections. That still amounts to a $2.5 million a year hidden tax. This is basically the old speed trap dressed up in high tech and automated.

I hope we can avoid Lubbock's approach to public safety and revenue. So far, our city council hasn't been swayed by the prospect of easy money. We need to keep vigilant to make sure it never happens.

New Addition to ConchoInfo

I have a late Christmas present for the readers of this blog. ConchoInfo now has Forums online. This is a bit different than this BLOG, as it groups posts under discussion boards and topics. I have added Water Issues, Public Safety, and Traffic & Transportation discussion boards and Water Quality, Water Sources & Distribution, and Red Light Cameras as starting topics. You can read anything in the forums, but must register to reply. I will be adding some forum admins as we go along as well. Enjoy.