We are a couple of signatures away from 500. Once again, thanks, and if a family member hasn't signed or if you have a neighbor who hasn't you might encourage them to also sign.
Even proven facts can't change some people's mind.
Unfortunately it appears the Edgewood City Council are some of those people. They make it difficult to provide those facts when they don't respond to attempts at contacting them. ONLY 3 COUNCIL MEMBERS, John West, Jason Ramirez, and Erica Buckley responded to an initial email asking for their position on claims made on the EdgewoodSchoolCams.com website. I have had lengthy conversations with Mayor Olson and a long one with John West after the last council meeting.
If you recall, during the first council meeting I attended, the council passed an ordinance which changed the minimum speed limit that infractions would be issued from 21mph to 24mph. The claim was that no infractions were issued for 23mph or less anyway.
They also changed the accounting method to have a separate account for funds collected through the traffic camera "program". No explanation was given why the city staff claimed the funds were not considered revenue on the website when they were clearly depositing the infraction money into the general fund account and showing it as revenue on accounting graphs. The city had been doing it for years, since 2019.
It was pointed out during the public comment period of the meeting that there were more problems with the traffic cameras than accounting problems. A major problem being the city is accusing and fining a citizen of speeding with no evidence.
Even though only one person spoke, Citizens are only given 3 minutes to speak with a clock ticking.
During the second council meeting they were presented with an infraction I received and asked to identify the driver. So far, no one has been able to identify who was driving the van.
They were also given a copy of a newspaper article from 2007 which included a quote from a ruling by the Minnesota Supreme Court:
"The problem with the presumption that the owner was the driver is that it
eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof from that
required by the rules of criminal procedure."
FACT: THE CITY IS DISREGARDING BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIREMENTS AND ISSUING $166 AND $250 FINES WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. THEY ARE ALSO DISREGARDING PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE REQUIREMENTS AND CLAIMING THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS SAID THEY CAN DO IT.
Many state governments and Washington State cities won't even go there.
FACT: DUE PROCESS ISN'T JUST WHATEVER PUBLIC OFFICIALS SAY IT IS. THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IS A KEYSTONE OF DUE PROCESS.
During the February 11 council meeting the council was presented with Washington State Patrol data showing there was never an incident in an Edgewood School Zone.
FACT: THE CITY HAS BEEN UNABLE TO PROVIDE ANY DATA TO SHOW THERE WAS EVER A PROBLEM AND THEREFORE CANNOT SHOW THEY HAVE ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING OTHER THAN COLLECT REVENUE.
More updates to come, it appears a strong showing at a council meeting might be needed to get their attention.