Misappropriated Bond Funds

The only place in the entire country where you can receive a $175 traffic ticket in the mail for having supposedly blown an automatic camera enforced stop sign is right here in Southern California.

Here's the back story:

The Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA), in 2007, introduced the nation's first stop-sign cameras ostensibly to improve public safety at seven scattered points in MRCA operated parks along the Santa Monica Mountains.

As far as government agencies go, the MRCA is an oddball creation, to say the least.

A Joint Powers Authority formed by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (SMMC) and two San Fernando Valley parks and recreation districts; it stands as a separate legal entity from the SMMC, even though the SMMC gives 95% of all the multi-millions of dollars in grants it awards to the MRCA. The MRCA and the SMMC also share the same Executive Director.

The cameras, operated by Redflex Traffic Systems, are activated when a sensor in the road detects a vehicle moving faster than 7 mph approaches a stop. The camera captures the rear license plate of cars after they pass through the stop and an administrative ticket is issued via the mail to the registered car owner. The MRCA insists it installed the cameras at high-traffic areas where vehicles come too close to hikers, joggers and bicyclists.

A report released last year stated that, in the previous 18 month period ending May 31, 2010, the seven MRCA installations had issued about 35,000 tickets and that there had been a significant reduction in the number of people running stop signs since the cameras were installed. This would seem to add credibility to the MRCA's claim that they were located in high traffic areas that required increased safety precautions in order to protect lives.

As the number of victims of these robo-cop ticketed photo shoots have mounted and the initial nuisance fine of $100 has matured into a more serious "Administrative Fee" of $175, both the choir membership's rolls and volume of the dissenting opinion's collective voice have risen correspondingly. In November 2009, the MRCA lost their first ticket fight when they reached a settlement and agreed to "suspend the penalty" in a year-long suit and appeal brought by an early critic of the MRCA's stop sign camera use.

Statistical and photographic evidence has also surfaced that seems to tell a different story than the snake-oil tale MRCA Exec. Dir. Joe Edmiston had been selling for the last four years.

In the picture below, taken at Marvin Braude Mulholland Gateway Park at the top of Reseda Blvd in Tarzana, the stop sign sits pretty much in the middle of the road. There’s no cross street, no crosswalk, no intersection; no chance that any vehicle or pedestrian will cross your path. In fact, there’s absolutely no reason at all to have a stop sign here.

And just to drive the point home, the reverse view of this photo enforced stop sign installation (below) makes it even more obvious that it was placed in such a way as to ensnare the maximum number of park visitors and reap the greatest amount of revenue.

The fact that there has never been an accident or injuries that can be attributed to drivers failing to stop at the stop signs on the roadways within the jurisdiction of MRCA operated parks..... None.... not before nor after Mr. Edmiston's successful campaign to save the children of all the unsuspecting park visitors by installing these automated cash cows............does nothing to offset the rumblings of discontent that have been growing with each passing year they are allowed to remain.... especially since the MRCA has profited to the tune of almost $2 Million in the eighteen month period ending May 31, 2010.

After the cameras’ initial installation, and as residents complaints mounted, the MRCA came under growing pressure to prove that their cash-cow was legal. So, acting as the Executive Director of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (SMMC), Joe Edmiston requested via an email, dated February 7, 2008, that the Office of the Attorney General review a legal opinion that the law firm of Richards Watson and Gershon (RWG) had provided to the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) concerning the MRCA traffic control ordinance that permitted the stop sign camera operation.

RWG's 2008 legal opinion concluded that the MRCA, as a JPA, could adopt a traffic control ordinance pursuant to Government Code section 53069.4, which authorizes "local agencies" to adopt ordinances and to make the violation of those ordinances subject to an administrative fine or penalty as defined within that ordinance.

RWG also concluded that the Vehicle Codes do not preempt the MRCA ordinance. RWG

based this conclusion on its opinion that the Vehicle Code provisions dealing with normal rules of the road are not applicable to roads in "MRCA parks" because those roads are not "public thoroughfares".

RWG also argued that the Vehicle Code only applies to "local authorities" and that the MRCA is not a "local authority" as defined in the Vehicle Code. (Yes. That does seem to conflict with their first argument.)

Finally, RWG argued that Section 40300 of the Vehicle Code, which limits the instances in which a driver may be cited for a vehicular violation to only those occurring in the presence of the arresting officer, did not apply to the MRCA's use of cameras to enforce vehicular violations because Section 40300 of the Vehicle Code only applied to violations of the Vehicle Code, and was not a limitation included in the MRCA's traffic ordinance.

On April 7th, 2008, in a letter to Joe Edmiston (in his capacity as Executive Director of SMMC), John A. Saurenman, Supervising Deputy Attorney General for Attorney General Jerry Brown, provided an Attorney General's Office "Informal Letter of Advice" in which...........,

.............without differentiating between parks "operated by the MRCA" and those "own and operated by the MRCA",

.............w/o comment as to whether roads on publicly-owned property were or were not "public thoroughfares" , and

.............w/o discussion as to whether "local authorities" were or were not the same thing as "local agencies"

.....he stated that the Attorney General's Office agreed with all of RWG's opinions, arguments and conclusions described above. That was taken by Mr. Edmiston to be the gospel.

And, then, in January 2010, SB 949 was introduced by Senator Oropeza.

SB 949 clarified that the provisions of the California Vehicle Code are applicable throughout the state, and that local authorities may not enact or enforce an ordinance or resolution related to matters covered in the state Vehicle Code, including ordinances or resolutions that establish regulations or procedures for, or assess a fine, penalty, assessment, or fee for a violation of the Vehicle Code, unless expressly authorized to do so.

On 5/4/10, in the State Senate Transportation and Housing Committee, and then again on 5/28/10 during the full State Senate Floor vote, SB 949 received unanimous support (8-0 & 28-0) and the bill was sent to the State Assembly for their review and concurrence.

Three months after Senator Oropeza's health had unfortunately deteriorated to a point at which she was no longer able to travel to Sacramento to participate in the Legislature's day-to-day proceedings, and despite the fact it was both the MRCA's and the Attorney General's opinion that the MRCA was NOT a "local authority" nor subject to the provisions of the Codes into which this exemption was inserted, on 8/20/10 the State Assembly amended SB 949 to "clarify" that this bill,

...to the extent permitted by current state law, does not impair the current lawful authority of the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA)  to enforce an ordinance or resolution relating to the management of public lands within its jurisdiction,

On 8/26/10, The State Assembly passed SB 949 (with Amendments) unanimously (69-0)

On 8/27/10, just two months before Senator Oropeza passed away, The State Senate unanimously concurred with the Assembly's amendments (33-0)

HOWEVER, the Senate’s Republican analysis of the bill never mentioned the MRCA and reported that the Assembly amendments were semantic in nature and did not make any substantive changes to the bill as passed by the Senate in May. (This bill only required a simple majority to pass)

On 9/30/10 The Governor approved SB 949.

And, that is how the MRCA became the only authority in the entire Country authorized to mail $175 tickets to registered car owners for having supposedly blown one of seven automatic camera enforced stop signs located within MRCA owned properties.

There is no sane reason for the MRCA to be the only authority in the entire Country to have this ability. But, they are. They had to sneak their exception to the law in past a dying State Legislator’s good intentions in order to get it. But, they got it. And, that should not stand.

This year, there was hope State Sen. Joe Simitian would take the opportunity that his SB 29 provides him to do just that. His SB 29 would bar localities from weighing "revenue generation" as a factor in deciding whether to install automated traffic enforcement systems such as red-light cameras. The bill would also bar camera vendors from being paid based on how much revenue their devices generate.

An outright ban on MRCA’s use of camera enforced STOP SIGNS would be an easy and sensible addition to SB 29……. BUT IT WASN’T IN SB 29. (an analysis of SB29 is included in our DOCUMENTS area for downloading.)

SB 29, in fact, lumped red LIGHT traffic cameras together with STOP SIGN traffic cameras and, now, just refers to them collectively as “automated traffic enforcement systems”.

SB 29 actually passed in both houses of the State Legislature in 2011, however Governor Brown vetoed the bill and included the reasoning that “matters like those included in SB 29 were better handled at the local level”. (Obviously, the Governor was not aware of Senator Oropeza’s SB 949’s or its intent that all traffic laws in California be made to mimic the State’s Vehicle Codes.