Damn the public, full steam ahead!

So much for the will of the voters. Mayor Annise Parker has announced that the red light cameras are being turned back on.

Of course the mayor is wringing her hands because the public made its opinion of the cameras known and she certainly doesn't want to upset the very people she'll be asking to re-elect her in November. She seems quite upset about having to turn the cameras back on and she was very happy to let us know that the city is asking the court for permission to appeal its ruling on the legality of the referendum.

And we all know the city had nothing at all to do with ATS' claim that the referendum was not authorized by law. We know the city attorney would never have lain in bed with ATS to figure out a way to get around the vote.

This is nothing but a farce. They city never wanted to turn the cameras off in the first place. The entire federal lawsuit with ATS was nothing but a sham from the beginning. The legality of the referendum had nothing to do with whether the city was in breach of its contract.

Mayor Parker and her buddy, David Feldman, orchestrated this charade in order to defy the voters and still say the matter was out of their hands.

Let's just hope that in November voters in Houston are more concerned about what a candidate will do in office than with how many boxes he or she can check off on a census form.

Houston Motion to Certify Permissive Interlocutory Appeal

Odds and ends

Perry signs bill compensating Anthony Graves

Gov. Rick Perry signed a bill on Tuesday authorizing the state to pay Anthony Graves $1.4 million in compensation for spending 18 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. In 2006, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Mr. Graves' conviction. As there was no finding of actual innocence, the State Comptroller refused to compensate Mr. Graves for his years behind bars.

I guess, Ms. Combs, that it's somehow Mr. Graves' fault that he was arrested, charged and convicted despite the prosecutor's knowledge that the state's star witness recanted the night before trial.

God knows the state has more important things to spend money on -- such as the more than $10,000 a month the state is spending for the house the fair-haired one is renting while the Governor's Mansion is renovated.

Is ATS blackmailing the City of Houston?

ATS, the operator of the red light cameras in Houston, has issued a letter to the city saying that all will be forgiven if the city turns the cameras back on by August 1. If the city chooses to honor the will of the voters, the city may be on the hook for up to $20 million for breach of contract.

The city attorney, David Feldman, made the odd statement that statistics indicate an increase in accidents at intersections since the cameras were turned off after last November's referendum. Of course, Mr. Feldman has never let the facts get in the way of his pronouncements.

We're about to see where Mayor Annise Parker stands when she must decide between money and the will of the populace. I'm not holding my breath.

The return of the red light camera?

On Friday, US District Judge Lynn Hughes ruled that last November's ballot initiative to repeal Houston's red light camera ordinance was invalid.

The court held that the referendum was held after the time limit to repeal city ordinances had expired.

Mayor Annise Parker said she will consult with her lapdog, city attorney David Feldman, about the city's next move. With budget shortfalls to deal with, it's a pretty good bet that the city is going to do everything it can to get the cameras rolling once again.

“We lost on the issue of the validity of the charter amendment, so what the court is saying, okay city, now decide what you’re going to do with the contract. We need to decide how we’re going to move forward, and what position we’re going to take with the contract in light of the fact he’s declared the charter amendment invalid.’’ -- David Feldman

Judge Hughes' ruling does raise a question or two. First, if the ballot initiative was invalid because the time for repealing the ordinance had passed, why did election officials certify the initiative on the ballot?  If this is an argument the city is raising for the first time, why didn't city officials challenge the placement of the initiative on the ballot last November? Why was a federal court issuing a ruling regarding a city ordinance?

I understand why the matter was in federal court. ATS, the manufacturer of the red light camera system was suing the City of Houston for breach of contract over the city's cancellation of the contract as a result of the referendum. It would appear that there was never an adversarial relationship between the company and the city and that the purpose of the litigation was to void the result of the referendum.

The question still remains however? Why was Judge Hughes making a ruling about a local ballot initiative? The only question before the court was whether the city had breached its contract with ATS - not why the city cancelled the contract. The reason behind the city's decision had nothing to do with whether or not the city breached any contract.

Judge Hughes had no reason to enter any ruling regarding the ballot initiative. By doing so he involved himself in a dispute that is a local, not a federal, matter.