Comments on: The Moravian Goes Before City Council

By: Dave Askins

Dave Askins — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:37:31 +0000

Re: [2] “The proposal does not state whether the law would include primary or secondary enforcement (primary, they can stop you for it, secondary they cannot stop you for it.)”

Actually, I think the provision (7) below makes it primary enforcement.

(7) This section may be enforced against the operator of a motor vehicle or bicycle whether or not the operator has been detained for a suspected violation of this Chapter or of any other law or ordinance.

By: ChuckL

ChuckL — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 23:38:29 +0000

In regard to the cell phone ban; I have grave reservations about this proposal. The proposal does not state whether the law would include primary or secondary enforcement (primary, they can stop you for it, secondary they cannot stop you for it.) The state is also considering similar legislation, so this law could overlap. If the Ann Arbor ordinance includes primary enforcement, this law would be another blow against citizen civil rights via the Fourth Amendment. Every time a vehicle is stopped, a diminishing of our civil rights has occurred. It is not sufficient to show that the activity in question is dangerous; it must also be shown that the enforcement is effective at reducing the threat to the public. If the enforcement is not effective, why tolerate a diminishing of our civil rights? In other words, the city should be required to show data that supports a ban on electronic devices in vehicles and data that shows enforcement is effective at mitigating any threat to the public.

I am also concerned that the city is simply attempting to create yet another excuse to gouge the public. The fines are hefty and will probably represent a new form of cash cow for the city. This is not good public policy using such bans for the purpose of raising revenue. The city needs to do its homework and show data that supports this new infringement of our Fourth Amendment.

By: mr dairy

mr dairy — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:40:05 +0000

Kunselman nails it, but it’s been common knowledge among city hall bureaucrats that municipal charges were indeed a way of “milking” or better described as the bureaucratic money laundry to fund projects that would otherwise not get funded by legitimate and transparent means such as line items in the budget.

IIRC, back in the 90′s, the City Attorney’s office settled a couple of lawsuits with a city attorney and a police chief. Shortly after that, a large municipal charge by the Attorney’s Office was assessed to the former Building Department for “services rendered”. Since the Attorney’s Office does not generate revenue, it appeared that the cash cow Building Department was “milked” for the settlements.