Doesn't Robison have something in Austin to write about?
The Chron's Austin news bureau chief is acting as Mayor White's PR man at the newspaper again this week, rambling once more in favor of cameras at traffic lights.
The "argument" doesn't go much beyond last week's effort, which effectively said "red light runners are bad, and the city should go after them."
But Robison does concede one point to opponents, even as he takes shots at them because they might be conservatives:
What's wrong with the city raising money, to be used for public needs, from people who willingly endanger other people on the road?
Here's what's wrong -- a little thing called accountability. The private contractor has an incentive to raise revenues, and the city wants those revenues -- for what? Nobody has bothered to answer that question, because they all insist this is a safety issue (as I've pointed out before, when politicians say it's not about the money, of course it's about the money). There's all sorts of potential for mischief when our city officials engage in public-private partnerships, as those of us who have lived here for a while understand quite well. Since Mr. Robison spends so much of his time in Austin, he may not realize that. Maybe he should be writing pro-camera editorials for the Austin American Statesman and telling Austinites how to raise more money for their city? Except that newspaper tends to have better taste on its editorial page.
Further, since the paranoid Austin bureau chief imagines a right-wing conspiracy against him, here's an unlikely ally of that conspiracy:
"This is a case of the city looking for money, and they're looking for the money in the wrong way," said ACLU attorney Randall Kallinan. "No study has shown that the safety is increased with red light cameras."
Of course it's about the money.
Robison concludes with another condescending lesson in American constitutionalism:
A popular misconception to the contrary, we don't even have an unrestricted, constitutional right to drive, much less to ignore basic rules of traffic safety.
You mean the Chronicle editors who embrace the constitutional privacy penumbras that protect the "right" to kill fetuses do not embrace the logical extension of said penumbras to traffic cameras? I'm so very disappointed in their selective embrace of constitutional fiat!
All joking aside, here's something for Robison to chew on: citizens do have a right to oppose bad public policy, policy that is designed to further liberal ends of expanding municipal government by raising revenues that are not earmarked for any particular purpose, and is presented under the guise of public safety. And even citizens who might be Republicans (or -- shock -- ACLU members!) enjoy that right, no penumbras necessary.
You would think the Austin news bureau chief might have something in Austin to write about, especially as the upcoming legislative session approaches. Maybe he was busy Kwanzaa shopping, and it was just easier to write a column belittling the people who sent him emails than come up with anything more substantive.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 12/19/04 10:25 AM | Print |
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
ADVERTISING
DISCLAIMER
All content © 2004-09, blogHOUSTON and the respective authors.
blogHOUSTON.net is powered by Nucleus.
Site design and Nucleus customization are by Kevin Whited.