Two Iowa City residents are back on the fight to remove all of the red-light cameras as well as other unmanned traffic-enforcement devices in Iowa City, which were recently allowed in a controversial movement.
According to krcg.com, Aleksey Gurtovoy and Martha Hampel have filed motions with the city for the cause. They believe the motion to be an initiative, but the city called it a referendum and rejected the last motion because of this.
The ordinance that caused the uproar and allowed traffic-enforcement cameras was passed in February. The city states that the ordinance is geared toward red-light cameras, which could be installed by fall.
To oppose this, Gurtovoy and Hampel are proposing an ordinance to ban unmanned traffic surveillance devices in Iowa City because the use of these devices can be abused. The two sought legal advice and filed what they believe to be an initiative, which is a motion for the City Council to consider.
The original filing was rejected as a referendum because this is a motion to reconsider something that is existing within 60 days of its creation or more than two years after it goes into effect, a time constraint which the motion did not meet.
The proposal will go to the public for a vote, where it will have to gain 2,500 signatures. If it is not approved as an initiative, the pair is prepared to go to court with the motion.
The movement that was filed by Gurtovoy and Hampel has not been viewed as of yet.
According to krcg.com, Aleksey Gurtovoy and Martha Hampel have filed motions with the city for the cause. They believe the motion to be an initiative, but the city called it a referendum and rejected the last motion because of this.
The ordinance that caused the uproar and allowed traffic-enforcement cameras was passed in February. The city states that the ordinance is geared toward red-light cameras, which could be installed by fall.
To oppose this, Gurtovoy and Hampel are proposing an ordinance to ban unmanned traffic surveillance devices in Iowa City because the use of these devices can be abused. The two sought legal advice and filed what they believe to be an initiative, which is a motion for the City Council to consider.
The original filing was rejected as a referendum because this is a motion to reconsider something that is existing within 60 days of its creation or more than two years after it goes into effect, a time constraint which the motion did not meet.
The proposal will go to the public for a vote, where it will have to gain 2,500 signatures. If it is not approved as an initiative, the pair is prepared to go to court with the motion.
The movement that was filed by Gurtovoy and Hampel has not been viewed as of yet.
Please login to post.