Home Rule Petition = Bad Idea
Tonight, 5 November 2008, there will be a Public Safety Committee meeting.
As a rule, any ordinance that requires a home rule petition is a bad idea. There are two on the agenda tonight.
The first petition...
015-08. Councillor Thomas J. Conry, to implement automated photographic traffic enforcement systems in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws.
This petition is a terrible idea. Camera enforcement does not improve public safety and there is plenty of evidence available that shows that, but don't expect Camera companies to provide that in their literature. Camera enforcement is about creating new revenue streams for cash strapped states and cities. This committee should soundly reject camera enforcement because of the lack of safety benefit. The petition then needs to go to Finance to determine if it is really a money maker or a looser (many California communities are getting rid of the cameras because they're too costly and haven't shown any safety benefit). It would then need to go to Legislative Affairs because the legislation to change Mass General Laws to allow camera enforcement is dead for this legislative session, making a home rule petition neccessary. The bill allowing camera enforcement was been killed by the insurance industry because there would be no surcharges for the tickets. Yeah, it's about the money.
The other petition is...
217-08. Councillor Kevin Starr, to petition the General Court for a special act of the legislature relative to public safety in the City of Fitchburg. The language of such act shall be identical to that of Ch. 327 of the Acts of 2004 enacted for the City of Somerville.
Essentially this give the police the authority to order people out of places if they are known gang members suspected of gang related activity. This idea, though it passed, was hotly contested in Somerville. On the surface it sounds like a good idea but it raises constitutional questions about the right to assemble. If it can be applied to gangs would it not be a simple matter to classify any group that is considered undesirable as a gang allowing government to stiffle their activities? Fitchburg cannot afford to put at risk of having to defend this one in the court system. I've never liked the idea of "giving the police another tool to do their job." If they already have a tool let them use it.
And here's a petition that makes needs to be altered...
192-08. Councillor Norman Boisvert, to declare Oak Hill Rd. from Fairmount St. to Franklin Rd. a “Truck Exclusion Zone” with the exception to be for local deliveries only.
This same petition was on the agenda for the Public Works Committee. It has been sent to the solicitor to determine if the council has the authority to create a Truck Exclusion. As of last Tuesday the solicitor had not responded. Other cities/towns are all over the map on Truck Exclusions. Leominster has properly requested exclusions from MassHwy and in some cases they've been granted. Lancaster has not put them in because they have not been approved. Then there's Clinton that has thrown up bogus signs (wrong color, wrong shape, wrong message - not similar to anything in the MUTCD) without approval. Bottom line regardless what the solicitor says is that MassHwy believes that MGL does not grant authority to cities to create truck exclusions. If there's a legitimate reason for this request, it needs to be reworded and the justification for the request needs to be formulated for MassHwy's approval or disapproval.
BTW there is at least one good idea on the agenda.
225-08. Councillor Kevin T. Starr, to turn Putnam St. from Main St. to Boulder Dr. back to a one way Street.
The conversion of Putnum to two way traffic was an ill conceived idea will no appropriate study introduced by Dan Mylott, while he was a councilor, pushed through the council while he was mayor. It's time to fix that mistake. It will be important to put up signs on Putnam, Main and Boulder warning of the pending change in the weeks prior to implimentation to avoid the possibility of collisions when unsuspecting motorists travel the wrong way.
As a rule, any ordinance that requires a home rule petition is a bad idea. There are two on the agenda tonight.
The first petition...
015-08. Councillor Thomas J. Conry, to implement automated photographic traffic enforcement systems in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws.
This petition is a terrible idea. Camera enforcement does not improve public safety and there is plenty of evidence available that shows that, but don't expect Camera companies to provide that in their literature. Camera enforcement is about creating new revenue streams for cash strapped states and cities. This committee should soundly reject camera enforcement because of the lack of safety benefit. The petition then needs to go to Finance to determine if it is really a money maker or a looser (many California communities are getting rid of the cameras because they're too costly and haven't shown any safety benefit). It would then need to go to Legislative Affairs because the legislation to change Mass General Laws to allow camera enforcement is dead for this legislative session, making a home rule petition neccessary. The bill allowing camera enforcement was been killed by the insurance industry because there would be no surcharges for the tickets. Yeah, it's about the money.
The other petition is...
217-08. Councillor Kevin Starr, to petition the General Court for a special act of the legislature relative to public safety in the City of Fitchburg. The language of such act shall be identical to that of Ch. 327 of the Acts of 2004 enacted for the City of Somerville.
Essentially this give the police the authority to order people out of places if they are known gang members suspected of gang related activity. This idea, though it passed, was hotly contested in Somerville. On the surface it sounds like a good idea but it raises constitutional questions about the right to assemble. If it can be applied to gangs would it not be a simple matter to classify any group that is considered undesirable as a gang allowing government to stiffle their activities? Fitchburg cannot afford to put at risk of having to defend this one in the court system. I've never liked the idea of "giving the police another tool to do their job." If they already have a tool let them use it.
And here's a petition that makes needs to be altered...
192-08. Councillor Norman Boisvert, to declare Oak Hill Rd. from Fairmount St. to Franklin Rd. a “Truck Exclusion Zone” with the exception to be for local deliveries only.
This same petition was on the agenda for the Public Works Committee. It has been sent to the solicitor to determine if the council has the authority to create a Truck Exclusion. As of last Tuesday the solicitor had not responded. Other cities/towns are all over the map on Truck Exclusions. Leominster has properly requested exclusions from MassHwy and in some cases they've been granted. Lancaster has not put them in because they have not been approved. Then there's Clinton that has thrown up bogus signs (wrong color, wrong shape, wrong message - not similar to anything in the MUTCD) without approval. Bottom line regardless what the solicitor says is that MassHwy believes that MGL does not grant authority to cities to create truck exclusions. If there's a legitimate reason for this request, it needs to be reworded and the justification for the request needs to be formulated for MassHwy's approval or disapproval.
BTW there is at least one good idea on the agenda.
225-08. Councillor Kevin T. Starr, to turn Putnam St. from Main St. to Boulder Dr. back to a one way Street.
The conversion of Putnum to two way traffic was an ill conceived idea will no appropriate study introduced by Dan Mylott, while he was a councilor, pushed through the council while he was mayor. It's time to fix that mistake. It will be important to put up signs on Putnam, Main and Boulder warning of the pending change in the weeks prior to implimentation to avoid the possibility of collisions when unsuspecting motorists travel the wrong way.
posted by noway @ 11/05/2008 07:01:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home