Comments on: People are not paying their red light tickets and they are getting less of them

By: GuestZero

GuestZero — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:33:18 +0000

Oh, hey, Dale. I do get the picture. The picture shows us that we can reduce our levels of government to what our various constitutions and charters should have produced — LIMITED GOVERNMENT. Anything that forces the government to cut itself down is fine by me.

I’ve said it before, and it bears repeating here: Government in Toledo is OBSOLETE. Compared to what it costs us, it literally does nothing worthwhile for us. Instead of waiting until you end up sending a lot of money to Govt Center just to support the salaries and pensions of those DO-NOTHINGS, why not just cut to the chase and cancel Toledo’s city government entirely? Be honest with yourself, for once.

By: Tom Mo

Tom Mo — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:38:08 +0000

Dale, ????

Please read Mr. Meyer’s comment, and then re-read his first paragraph.

Not sure what part of my comments made you feel the 0 tax vibe. lol.

By: John Meyer

John Meyer — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:16:46 +0000

dalepertcheck

I don’t think Tom Mo is saying to spend less on things like police protection, fire protection, pot holes filled, snow removed. I imagine the kinds of things he is referring to would be like keeping the pools open, paying amounts of money to historic boats, keeping the Erie Street Market, etc.

Think of it this way, you live on a budget where you pay for things ranging from housing, food, utilities, clothing, cable, going out to eat, entertainment, etc. Now right now let’s assume you can afford those things and it’s all well and good. Of course should something happen to decrease your cash flow you can’t keep the same standard of living you’ve been used to and need to cut back. I would hope you don’t decide to eliminate housing, food, and utilities before cable, going out to eat, and entertainment.

My personal view on government is that people naturally pull together their resources to accomplish the goals the community needs to survive and that there are certain things you would not want in private hands. For example, the police should never be in private. In private hands you only receive protection if you can pay for it whereas in community hands (whether volunteering or supporting monetarily) they should protect everyone equally. Infrastructure is another one… can you imagine all the pay roads you would see on your way to work if they were privately held?

I do think that everyone subscribes to this very basic view of government, the main difference is where people draw the line on where government becomes too big. Of couse the thing you must remember is that with every task you turn over to government you are giving up a little bit of your power. By power I mean the ability to make choices on your own for your own well being.

By: dalepertcheck

dalepertcheck — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:25:42 +0000

Tom Mo
Keep living in your dream world where no one pays any taxes and we still have proper police protection, fires extinguished, pot holes filled, leaves picked up, snow removed, etc. When governments “Quit spending…” there are more worries, not less! Not lol!

By: Tom Mo

Tom Mo — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:50:34 +0000

I don’t think running a red light is ever excusable, but it’s obvious that unless the statute is changed, the cameras aren’t that effective.

Isn’t this another example of unintended consequences – the government thinks they will take in x amount, and the people find a way around it – or just ignore it altogether.

The attraction of government officials to the cameras has always been the revenue, but it’s not that easy to get money out of people’s hands.

Quit spending and less worrying will be done on where to make a quick buck off us.

By: roman

roman — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:33:06 +0000

and what’s even funnier about all this is that the folks who wanted the cameras taken down have nothing to say. Why? Because they are the ones who mentioned that these cameras are not “legal” hence don’t worry about paying the fine. Now we have a bunch of runners who have run a muck on these intersections with a “pass through red light” card in their pocket. Let’s make sure we get together and remind those who wanted them gone (cameras) that the numbers don’t lie. The government may have over budgeted the year but that doesn’t excuse the morons running the lights.

By: Tom Mo

Tom Mo — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:34:29 +0000

Since when do small government advocates want anorexic police forces unable to do their jobs?

LOL, Dale.

By: dalepertcheck

dalepertcheck — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:17:36 +0000

The fact that Toledo has less police officers because of budget cuts directly affects Toledo’s ability to find and arrest the traffic violators. All of you advocates for less government, this is what too little government gets you.

It’s a no-win situation. The city has lower revenues, so they cut back the number of police and concentrate on crimes against people. Lower enforcement of traffic violations leads to lower city revenues, which leads to less police, which leads to… Get the picture?

By: DD BOOTS

DD BOOTS — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:37:22 +0000

Well Kat, if they cannot pay their fines within a certain period of time put them on Community Service and have them mow grass in the summer, rake leaves in the autumn and shovel sidewalks in the winter!

By: kat

kat — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:55:17 +0000

Some people just don’t care. I have seen so many drivers see the light red, and still 2 cars will follow and go thru. Light goes off, ticket. Do they have money to throw away? I sure don’t.Iam’ quoting someone who said your back wheels have to be over the line and it won’t go off. As far as collecting money for ticket, if they don’t pay, they may get pulled over for something else, then can their car be towed for outstanding ticket? If they run on purpose they deserve ticket. Let them figure out how to pay.