Everyday Goddess

Partial Victory in My MRCA Ticket Appeal!

Well, what do you know.  I got a notice this weekend that the decision is that I owe only $100 for my MRCA Photo-enforced Stop Sign Ticket. So with any luck, I'll be getting a $75 check in the mail from the MRCA or from Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. I had to pay the $175 fine up front, so at this point I have to wait for a refund. It would be so nice if it came promptly for the holidays.

Incidentally, the argument against my argument against the photo-enforced part (say that five times fast) was that the statute I quoted (Public Resources Code 5786.17) didn't apply. I was not remotely equipped to argue back against that.

But I do remember thinking at one part during the hearing when the lawyer was addressing the second part of my argument about the amount of the fine, Did he just say that the MRCA can just set whatever fines they want? That doesn't seem right. I argued back that I thought that the MRCA has to be meant to operate within the system and at least within the spirit of the laws of California.

Of course, I still feel very strongly that photo-enforced tickets are wrong and should be fully illegal, but given that the judge upheld that part of my appeal, her lowering of my fine to the $100 stipulated by Government Code 53069.4 (although it should be noted that the notice I received doesn't specifically refer to this as relevent, it just lowers my fine) seems logical and fair. And I am very pleased to have had any success at all in this endeavor. And getting $75 back is pretty great and does make the fine for running the stop sign more reasonable to me.

The end of a chapter! Case closed.

~

My previous posts about my MRCA ticket:

Photo-enforced Traffic Tickets Are Cruel and Unethical.

What's What's Wrong at the Heart of MRCA Photo Enforced Stop Sign Tickets

So I went to my MRCA Administrative Hearing

Temescal Canyon, You Are Dead To Me

Photo-enforced Traffic Tickets Are Cruel and Unethical.

Photo-enforced traffic tickets are cruel and unethical because they come after the fact in the mail. You, as a citizen, don't know they're coming or when or how many, because on the day or days you broke the law, you had no idea you also got marked for a fine. So the ticket arrives in the mail - hopefully only one - and a month after you broke the law, suddenly you can't buy groceries. Or gas. Or maybe you just spent some money on something you wouldn't have if you'd known the ticket was coming. This is why we have laws that limit the amount of a ticket and how it is issued. Photo-enforced traffic tickets are bad faith on the part of the issuing government party. They're mean, and they make you feel bad about your role as a citizen.

It's wrong for the government to film you and then mail you an unexpected bill. It's also the top of one heck of a slippery slope.

I didn't argue that in California Superior Court today. At least not as completely or as clearly as above.

I also didn't think to make any statements about respecting that I had indeed done something wrong, and that of course running a stop sign is bad and a tickable offense. Which I clearly should have because after the case was complete the judge spoke to me about accidents involving running stop signs. I managed to get in that I respected that and that was why I wasn't arguing about having ran the stop sign in the first place.

She said that she's gotten tickets before and simply paid them, and I said, "So have I."

Still, I seriously should have spoken to this point during the actual hearing.

I thought it would be better to keep it simple and just argue my points, (see my blog post, So I went to my MRCA Administrative Hearing), but I wasn't able to speak directly to the points that the lawyer had prepared against my position. Both because I couldn't anticipate them, and also because I'd pretty much reached my current level of California law digestion and understanding.

It was all really interesting and educational, that's for sure.

I'm pretty sure I lost today, but what's worse is that my first goal was *supposed* to be to remain calm and collected and not get upset, and - yet again - I failed miserably on this point. I left court feeling like, Why are you crying? WTF? I mean, I knew I was going to be in over my head going in.

It makes no sense to me, and yet, there it happened again.

I need to really think about what's the trigger. I know it happens after a long speech against me where I have to just sit and listen. I know it's frustration at my limitations, and feeling like I'm in a situation that's stacked against me. Feeling like the poor little fool who has no chance against the rich grownups. Anger at injustice.

I know that after it starts, then I'm distracted by my anger and frustration with myself, and my embarrassment at my tears and shaking voice. Today I regrouped and said what I meant to say, but not as well as I would have liked. I also feel like I could have thought of some other good things to say if I hadn't gotten upset.

I should have practiced that moment ahead of time, I think. I bet I have some friends who would roleplay with me in advance of a situation. I prepped that way once for a negotiation, and I was very successful at what we practiced.

So this is something I will continue to work on. I'm also very thankful for the woman who smiled at me reassuringly as I was walking out.

Another thing is knowing that while it's definitely something to just show up, it's not enough. I want to be someone who does the work AND does it well. For example from another part of my life, it's not enough to say that I've applied to the ABC/DGA Directing Program X number of times, rather I need to be doing what it takes to have a stronger application. Doing the work has meaning, but I need to push beyond that. I want to do the work AND excel.

For today, however, just doing the work is going to have to do. I think I did OK, and I think I lost, and I didn't even stay calm. But I tried. And I stood up for what I believe in. I stood up against photo-enforced traffic tickets because I believe to my core that they are cruel and unethical.

Actually, I sat because the judge said to, and the lawyer for MRCA didn't. That was weird and confusing. I think I should have restood when I spoke? I decided to sit because she said to and let it go.

You know, I think people tell lawyer jokes because it's actually really impressive what they do every day and some people want to diminish that to make themselves feel better because they couldn't do it. I can't imagine feeling comfortable in a courthouse setting and standing up like that every day. I think that's why we make so many shows about courtrooms and hospitals, because if you're outside them, they and the people who work in them are so impressive and their entire world is really fascinating.

One other interesting thing, while I've no idea how to object, I did manage to stipulate that I ran the stop sign so we didn't have to watch the video. So I guess one small personal victory for me.

In other news, gingerbread lattes are in at Starbucks, and I was really grateful to be able to have that treat after a very challenging morning.

My previous posts about my MRCA ticket:

What's What's Wrong at the Heart of MRCA Photo Enforced Stop Sign Tickets

So I went to my MRCA Administrative Hearing

Temescal Canyon, You Are Dead To Me

UPDATE: After I wrote this post I realized that I should give myself a break considering I had a major face swelling episode on Wednesday night, then work all day Thursday at my new job where I was embarrassed because of my swollen face, and then there's the fact that I'm closing out three challenging years of layoffs, unemployment and underemployment. I went. I didn't do as well as I would have like to. But I made it, I did it, I learned a lot, and it's done. I know if I keep moving forward, and keep working hard, things will stabilize and the balance will tip to more winning. Final stretch on this difficult period of my life. I declare it!

What's Wrong at the Heart of MRCA Photo Enforced Stop Sign Tickets

I just got a new job in Burbank. Huzzah!

This means that I traverse the length of Burbank twice daily on either Magnolia Boulevard or Burbank Boulevard. Last week was my first week, and as I traveled along at 35/40 miles an hour, I watched many cars pass me by. This did not bother me one bit, because a few years ago in Burbank I got a speeding ticket for going 50 on one of those roads where the speed limit is 35 mph.

The first thing I thought of when I thought of my new commute was, I'm sure as heck not getting another speeding ticket in Burbank, and I need to be extra careful if I'm going to be driving across it twice a day.

See, the configuration of Magnolia Boulevard and Burbank Boulevard remind me of Glades Road and Palmetto Park Road in Boca Raton, where I drove for many years. Driving across Burbank feels like driving across Boca, in a way, and those roads have a nice 45 mph speed limit.

Personally, I still think the 35 mph speed limit on Magnolia and Burbank is too slow.

But the cop that pulled me over was super friendly and polite. And clearly explained that despite what I might think, it's pretty dangerous to go 50 mpg on Magnolia and Burbank. Complete with examples of recent accidents. And I have to admit, no one parks along Glades and Palmetto the way they do here.

I didn't contest my - rather expensive - speeding ticket. I don't hate the city of Burbank. And I adjusted my driving habits.

Driving to and from work this past week got me thinking about my upcoming appeal to the Superior Court about my MRCA Photo Enforced Stop Sign Ticket. And how - unlike my experience in Burbank - I now feel nothing but negative feelings about Temescal Canyon Park where I got it.

See, when you fight a ticket - or really any injustice - people come out of the woodwork to tell you to just settle down and take your medicine. Meanwhile, the MRCA points to a decrease in people running their stop signs as proof of (at least) effectiveness. But is that really their goal? And is this really the best way to go about it?

I know it doesn't matter to the MRCA that I'll never step foot on their property again and how I now feel about their parks.

But maybe it should, because had I been stopped immediately and given a ticket by a uniformed employee, as required by California Public Resources Code 5786.17, and had that ticket been $100 or less, as required by California Government Code 53069.4, I would have learned my lesson, and I would have paid my ticket and moved on, and I would still go hiking at Temescal.

Perhaps said uniformed employee could even have taken the opportunity to educate me and have a dialogue the way the Burbank officer did.

Instead, a lawyer for the MRCA will testify and show evidence that I ran the stop sign. He and everyone else in the court will be having a normal day, somewhere they go all the time to do their jobs. I will concede that I did indeed run the stop sign and will attempt to argue that the ticket and the fee break the laws I mentioned above. All while having a totally new experience and having no representation.

I do think I have a chance - I mean, I read the laws myself and it seems pretty clear to me - but I suspect that there's a high probability that my inexperience with court will mean I don't win my case. It's still important to me to try, because I feel very strongly that the MRCA Photo Enforced Stop Sign program is unethical, illegal, a bald-faced money-making scheme, and flat-out mean.

I also think that it creates negative energy around the parks system, but I won't be arguing that in court.

My previous posts about my MRCA ticket:

So I went to my MRCA Administrative Hearing

Temescal Canyon, You Are Dead To Me

So I went to my MRCA Administrative Hearing

When we last visited my $175 MRCA photo enforced ticket for running a stop sign, I declared Temescal Canyon, You Are Dead To Me. Now I've been through my administrative hearing. No suspense here, I am still ordered to pay.

I went on my lunch break to Franklin Canyon Park. I don't have air conditioning in my car, and we were still in that horrible heat wave, so that was awesome. I was also irrationally TERRIFIED that I would somehow run another stop sign on park property. I hated that I had to go there for the hearing.

I was so afraid of being late that I was quite early. When I checked in, everyone was polite, but they all sit in their offices, so after you ring a bell and sign in, you sit there alone and just listen to them on the phone or talking amongst themselves.

After a while a park ranger showed up and disappeared into the back.

My appointment was at 12:45pm, and at 12:50pm I heard a woman from the office where the park ranger was declare with a mean laugh, "I watched that video, she didn't even slow down!"

It was a mistake to be early. I was so nervous, and then I had to sit there alone, and then when I heard that woman say that I just felt awful. I was thinking, is $175 a joke to her? Like maybe that's not as much money to her as it is to me?

Or I guess she just thinks people who run stop signs deserve to be severly punished, without warning weeks after the fact, and deserve to be laughed at? And how about the revelation that they all sit around and watch the videos? Shitty.

The MRCA ticket said I had a right to a hearing, but I guess respect, not so much.

Right after that, the ranger came out and asked when my appointment was. When I told her 12:45pm, she took me right away. Into a GYNORMOUS room, where a couple tables and chairs were set up with a projector in a back corner.

And I have to tell you, at this point I was freaked out. I didn't really know what to expect. I didn't know there would be a ranger there in addition to the hearing officer. I didn't know the atmosphere would be *so* awful.

And I didn't know it would be like a trial with opening statements, cross examination, testimony, and closing statements. My only previous experience with a hearing was an unemployment hearing, which was totally different. And in a much more reasonably sized room.

But, I was prepared, and I think I did OK. We watched the video of me running the stop sign (with a slight slow down) projected onto the wall, big, like six times. That part is kind of painfully hilarious in retrospect, but was actually pretty crappy while I was there.

During my cross-examination, I asked the ranger:

• Her name
• If she herself or any other park employee was there when I ran the stop sign (no)
• The amount of the ticket ($175)

Then, during my testimony, I used these arguments, clarification of which I got from The Freedom Minute:

2. The MRCA may not use automated enforcement for violations of its ordinances because Public Resources Code 5786.17 which gives parks districts authority to issue citations (and which the MRCA uses to claim its authority to do so) specifies that those citations may only be issued when the violation is committed in the presence of a uniformed employee issuing the citation.
3. The MRCA may not issue administrative citations in excess of $100.00 because Government Code 53069.4 which authorizes local agencies to issue administrative citations (and which the MRCA uses to claim its authority to do so) specifically limits these citations to $100.00.

I looked the codes up myself before I went to the hearing as well, so I could be confident that they were correct and I could quote them verbatim.

I didn't use his #1 argument (The MRCA ordinance is pre-empted by state law, specifically the California Vehicle Code, which does not permit the use of automated enforcement at stop signs) because at this point they're making really sure they are clear that you are being charged for breaking park rules, not a traffic violation which would come under California Vehicle Laws. And this is precisely why #2 and #3 are relevant. Although I agree with the spirit of #1. Photo enforcement is ethically problematic and not in good faith.

It was very interesting that during the ranger's testimony she hit all the arguments that the MRCA *can* defend against. But no mention was made of any arguments that would have defended against my points.

I was losing it from the nervousness after I gave my testimony, mostly because I'd started thinking about how much money $175 dollars is, which makes me sick to my stomach, so I declined to give a closing statement. I drove away wishing I had, and thinking about what I could say, but I'm confident it wouldn't have made any difference.

Today, I received the decision that I am still ordered to pay. It didn't include anything I said during the hearing or any rebuttal of anything I said during the hearing.

And I thought it would include instructions on how to appeal, but it just tells me which court. The Freedom Minute says I have 20 days from the date of the decision, (dated 9/13 and mailed 9/16), but what the MRCA sent doesn't specify that, so I'm not completely sure if that's the case. Further, The Freedom Minute suggests hiring an attorney, but clearly, if I can't afford $175 for the ticket, I can't afford an attorney.

So, next steps, I will look at the Van Nuys Superior Court website and see if there is any guidance about filing appeals, and then maybe Legal Zoom, which I've heard commercials for on the radio. And Google. If you have any links for me, that would be awesome. I'm going to try to get it done tomorrow so that it goes out on Monday.

If you want to read more about the MRCA's Photo Enforcement of Stop Signs:

• LA Times: Parks agency's traffic cameras anger motorists.
• Streetsblog Los Angeles: Mountains Recreation & Conservation Authority Responds to LAT Article on Stop Sign Cameras.
• LA Daily News: Kerry Cavanaugh: Stop-sign program has teeth.

As for me? Next stop, Van Nuys Superior Court. At least I know where it is - I went there while I was working on my salvage registration. Bureaucracy? Well, I got the patience to do what's right.

Not really the most enjoyable way to spend a lunch break, though.

UPDATE: Well, clearly not getting this out on Monday. Still hoping I can figure it out, though, since the thought that they can just disregard the law and take my money is rather soul-crushing.

Temescal Canyon, You Are Dead To Me

If you talked to me a week ago about hiking in L.A., one place would have come out of my mouth: Temescal Canyon. Nevermind that when I was last there on June 25th it was majorly overgrown so that numerous spots were like bee gauntlets and so dusty that my friend slipped and twisted her ankle - that sort of stuff tends to be a temporary state, and it remained my favorite urban hike. I can't count how many times I've recommended it to people.

And yes, I pay to park in the lot. This time I didn't have change to put $7 in the iron ranger, so I put in a $10. To support the park.

Then last Thursday, I got a $175 dollar "Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority Stop Sign Photo Enforcement Program Administrative Citation" in the mail. Which I have only until August 15th to pay. And which, if I would like to request an administrative hearing about, I still have to shell out the $175 dollars first. I will have to put it on a credit card, because I don't actually have that much available spending money in two months, much less one.

Yes, I ran the stop sign. In fact, they have a charming video I can watch online for 60 days.

That said, $175 is an absurd amount of money for running a stop sign, and more importantly, camera traps are currently illegal in the state of California (see this article in the Palisades Post regarding a current class action lawsuit) - and this ticket seems to be from a private company that runs the camera. Had I known I'd gotten a ticket that day, from an actual law enforcement officer, I would have known to pull back on my grocery shopping and gas consumption so I could pay the ticket without having to put it on a credit card.

Also, I now loath Temescal Canyon with the strength of a thousand suns. I will never hike there again, and I will actively warn people not to go there. Honestly, the entire thing makes me sick to my stomach, $175 is so much money to me. I'll never be able to go there without feeling horrible.

Note that these cameras are in five locations I will personally avoid like the plague: two in Temescal Gateway Park, Two in Franklin Canyon Park, and one in Topanga (according to the Palisades Post article).

Did I run a stop sign? Yes, I did. And if the ticket was a reasonable amount of money and issued by the state of California via an actual law enforcement officer, I would feel a heck of a lot less scammed.

Are $175 tickets worth forever alienating your patrons? I guess so.