Locate an Auto Repair Shop in Paradise Valley, Arizona

Paradise Valley, AZ Car Consumer Discussions

Meanwhile, in a parallel universe.....

by vcheng on Tue Jul 14 05:04:06 PDT 2009

This is an interesting story since it relates to the use of photo cameras not to fine for violations, but to record ALL vehciles for POTENTIAL investigations. This is the sort of mission creep and the "thin edge of the wedge" issues related to automatic surveillance that riases grave concerns. Also note the old "if your are not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to fear" and "it is all for your safety" arguments, only this time as an excuse to record everybody's comings and goings with out even a pretence of any laws being broken. from: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/09/MNT6189U0U.DTL Tiburon may install license plate cameras Demian Bulwa, Chronicle Staff Writer Friday, July 10, 2009 (07-09) 19:11 PDT -- Welcome to Tiburon. Click. Your presence has been noted. The posh and picturesque town that juts into San Francisco Bay is poised to do something unprecedented: use cameras to record the license plate number of every vehicle that crosses city limits. Some residents describe the plan as a commonsense way to thwart thieves, most of whom come from out of town. Others see an electronic border gate and worry that the project will only reinforce Tiburon's image of exclusivity and snootiness. "I personally don't see too much harm in it, because I have nothing to hide," commodities broker Paul Lambert, 64, said after a trip to Boardwalk Market in downtown Tiburon on a recent afternoon. "Yet," he said, "it still has the taint of Big Brother." Tiburon's camera idea is a marriage of technology, policing and distinct geography. Situated on a peninsula, Tiburon's hillside homes and waterfront shops are accessible by only two roads, allowing police to point the special cameras known as license plate readers at every lane that leads into and out of the town of 8,800. The readers, which use character recognition software, can compare plates to databases of cars that have been stolen or linked to crimes, then immediately notify police of matches, said Police Chief Michael Cronin. If someone burglarized a Tiburon home at 3 a.m. one morning, he said, detectives could consult the devices and find out who came to town in the hours before - and who rolled out soon after. 'Very low-key' "It's very low-key," said Town Manager Peggy Curran. "The whole point of license plates is that people can be identified by them." If the Town Council gives final approval, Curran said, officials hope to install the readers on Tiburon Boulevard and Paradise Drive by late fall. Tiburon plans to spend grant funds on the project and ask two other governments that could benefit from it to contribute to an expected price tag of $100,000 - the city of Belvedere, a bump of land on the southeastern edge of Tiburon, and Marin County. Cronin called it a sound investment. He pointed to a frustrating twist in Tiburon crime: Residents feel so safe that they don't lock their cars and homes. In all of 2007 and 2008, Tiburon recorded 196 thefts, 37 burglaries and a dozen stolen cars. The chief said every alleged thief who was arrested in those years was from outside Tiburon. Findings Suspects Once the street cameras are installed, Cronin said, hunting a burglary suspect could be easier. "We'll look for a plate that came and went," he said. "That's going to give us a very short list to work on." Detectives could then check to see if any of the cars has been linked with crimes in the past. Between 300 and 400 cars use Tiburon Boulevard to travel in or out of the town from midnight to 6 a.m. on weekdays. "It's much more efficient than having an officer sit on the boulevard, watch passing cars and guess who might be a burglar," Cronin said. Nicole Ozer, who directs policy on technology for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, isn't as supportive. She called the cameras a "needle in a haystack" approach that may waste money, invade privacy and invite unfair profiling. "To be under investigation simply because you entered or left Tiburon at a certain time is incredibly intrusive," Ozer said. "Innocent people should be able to go about their daily lives without being tracked and monitored." City leaders promise to prevent abuses. Information on which cars enter and leave town will not be available to the public, they said, and will be erased within 60 days. Police officers will be granted access to the information only during an investigation. License plate readers have exploded in popularity in recent years, but Tiburon would be one of the first to mount them at fixed locations - and perhaps the very first to record every car coming or going. California Highway Patrol officials have put the readers on 18 cruisers and at four fixed locations. CHP officers have seen a huge increase in recoveries of stolen cars since the devices were installed starting in August 2005, the agency said. Devices help CHP Through December, officials said, the CHP had used the devices to recover 1,739 cars and arrest 675 people. San Francisco gave the devices to police as well as parking control officers, allowing them to track cars parked for too long in one spot. Some cities use the cameras to assess anti-congestion tolls on motorists, while casino bosses get an alert when a high roller - or a cheater - pulls in. Outside Tiburon's Boardwalk Market, where a flyer in the window offered a $2,000 reward for the return of a stolen Pomeranian, residents seemed split on the plan. Robin Pryor, 66, of Belvedere said the most important issue was whether the cameras made people safer. "It's just like locking your door," Pryor said. "If they have reason for it to bother them, they shouldn't be coming in." But Fred Mayo, 62, who lives in Tiburon and owns a travel agency in Mill Valley, said the cameras would invade privacy. "Where does it end?" Mayo asked. He referred to the crime blotter in the local newspaper, which listed two incidents recently of kids tossing water balloons at cars, and noted, "It's not like Tiburon's a high-crime area." E-mail Demian Bulwa at dbulwa@sfchronicle.com. This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Re: are current Gas prices reasonable? [gagrice]

by larsb on Mon Mar 09 09:40:44 PDT 2009

gary says, "And what percentage of alternative energy is produced in Arizona, arguably the sunniest place in the USA?" Funny that you ask: AZ Not a Solar Leader (but should be) Yes, it's sunny here. But Arizonans are learning that it takes more than blazing rays to make Phoenix the "solar capital of the world." The Sonoran Desert is among the most efficient spots on Earth for solar power plants and rooftop solar arrays. Click here to find out more! State requirements for utilities to get 15 percent of their energy from clean sources by 2025 also would seem an opportunity for solar manufacturing. But most solar panels, mirrors, frames and other equipment are made elsewhere. In case after case, the state has fallen short of the competition. At least 10 companies have looked at Arizona in the past two years but decided to move their factories and about 4,500 workers to other Western states. Business experts say the state needs to use some of the tax credits and other tools used by those other states to diversify its housing-dependent economy and deliver the state high-paying manufacturing jobs. Some business leaders and politicians have made it a mission to grow Arizona's solar industry, saying it could anchor a strong economy. "Just because it's sunny doesn't mean we are going to get solar companies here," said Rep. Michele Reagan, a Scottsdale Republican who is co-sponsoring a renewable-energy manufacturing-incentive bill with Sen. Barbara Leff, R-Paradise Valley. "We have not capitalized on any industry in the solar arena or renewable energy at all. But it's not the Environmentalists stopping it here. It's higher corporate tax rates.

Due process is ALWAYS important.

by vcheng on Thu Feb 19 06:53:36 PST 2009

from: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/00/68.asp Arizona State Appeals Court Photo Radar Decision Full text of the 1992 Arizona State Appeals Decision forbidding the mailing of speed camera tickets. In 1992, the Arizona State Appeals Court ruled that mailing of speed camera tickets to motorists violated the law. It required "personal service", that is, hand delivery, of any violation. Article Excerpt: Jeffrey J. TONNER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PARADISE VALLEY MAGISTRATE'S COURT and Hon. Lester Penterman, a magistrate thereof, Town of Paradise Valley, a municipal corporation, and the State of Arizona, Defendants-Appellants No. 1 CA-CV 90-429 Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, Department C 171 Ariz. 449; 831 P.2d 448; 1992 Ariz. App. May 12, 1992, Filed JUDGES: Bolton, Judge.1 Contreras, P.J., and McGregor, J., concur. OPINIONBY: BOLTON Defendants-appellants appeal from a superior court judgment vacating an order of civil sanction entered by the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court on a civil traffic complaint issued to plaintiff-appellee Jeffrey Tonner. Appellee filed a special action in superior court to vacate the order of civil sanction, arguing that the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court lacked personal jurisdiction when it entered a default judgment against him. The superior court judge found that service by mail under Rule 4.1(c) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure (formerly Rule 4(e)(7)) was not completed prior to entry of judgment and that the judgment entered was void. On February 11, 1990, the photo radar device operated by the Town of Paradise Valley detected a vehicle registered to General Motors Acceptance Corporation ("GMAC") traveling at an alleged speed of fifty-six miles per hour in a forty mile per hour zone. A summons and Arizona traffic ticket and complaint were mailed to GMAC alleging a violation of Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. ("A.R.S.") @ 28-701 (1989), driving at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent. GMAC forwarded the summons and complaint to appellee and his wife, the lessees of the vehicle. GMAC also sent the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court a copy of its transmittal letter to appellee. The summons and Arizona traffic ticket and complaint were reissued, naming Tonner as defendant and the vehicle's driver at the time of the alleged violation of section 28-701. On March 7, 1990, a copy of the summons and Arizona traffic ticket and complaint and two copies of the notice and acknowledgment of receipt of summons and complaint were sent by first-class mail to appellee with a return, postage-paid envelope. The summons directed appellee to appear on March 22, 1990, in the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court. Appellee never signed and returned the notice and acknowledgment of receipt of summons and complaint nor did he appear on March 22, 1990. On that date, based on appellee's failure to appear, the allegations of the complaint were deemed admitted, and an order of civil sanction was entered against him. The Town of Paradise Valley argues on appeal that use of first-class mail for delivery of a summons and complaint is sufficient for service and to obtain personal jurisdiction over defendants in civil traffic matters. We disagree. The requirements for service under Rule 4.1(c) are clear. A summons and complaint may be served by first-class mail along with two copies of a notice and acknowledgment of receipt of summons and complaint and a postage-paid return envelope, but service is not complete until the acknowledgment of receipt is executed. Ariz.R.Civ.P. 4.1(c)(1), (2). If the acknowledgment of receipt is not executed, service is not complete under this method even if there is evidence that the summons and complaint were received. See Worrell v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 845 F.2d 840, 841-42 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 907, 109 S.Ct. 3191, 105 L.Ed.2d 699 (1989). Until service is complete, no personal jurisdiction is obtained, and any judgment entered is void. Endischee v. Endischee, 141 Ariz. 77, 79, 685 P.2d 142, 144 (App.1984); Kadota v. Hosogai, 125 Ariz. 131, 134, 608 P.2d 68, 71 (App.1980). Appellant argues that requiring execution of the acknowledgment of receipt creates a conflict with A.R.S. @ 28-1076 (1989) because that statute requires the civil traffic complaint to state a time and place for appearance before the magistrate, and if the person summoned fails to appear, the allegations of the complaint will be deemed admitted, a judgment in favor of the State will be entered, and a civil sanction will be imposed. We find no conflict between Rule 4.1(c)(2) and A.R.S. @ 28-1076. Section 28-1076(D) provides that a "person served with a civil traffic complaint" must appear at the time directed or "the allegations in the complaint shall be deemed admitted and the court shall enter judgment for this state." (Emphasis added.) To serve a civil traffic complaint, the State must comply with A.R.S. @ 28-1073 (1989), which requires service "by delivering a copy of the uniform traffic complaint citation to the person charged with the violation or by any means authorized by the rules of civil procedure." A.R.S. @ 28-1073(A). Appellant attempted service by mail under Rule 4.1(c) by complying with the requirements of Rule 4.1(c)(1). Without a defendant's voluntary complaiance with the requirements of Rule 4.1(c)(2), service is not complete, and no personal jurisdiction over a defendant is achieved. In that event, a plaintiff may attempt service by any other method authorized by Rule 4.1 with the costs of service shifted to the defendant who failed to execute and return the acknowledgment of receipt. Ariz.R.Civ.P. 4.1(c)(3). Nothing in section 28-1073(A) eliminates or modifies any steps required to complete service. Section 28-1076(A)'s requirement that the summons state a time and place for appearance and section 1076(D)'s provision that failure to appear shall be deemed an admission of the allegations in the complaint, requiring the court to enter judgment for the State and impose a civil sanction are not inconsistent with the rules for service by mail or the rules for service by any other means authorized by the Rules of Civil Procedure. The appellant's recourse when a defendant fails to execute the acknowledgement of receipt is to continue the hearing and serve the complaint by some other authorized method. See Ariz.R.Civ.P. 4.1(c)(3). Until the magistrate's court obtains personal jurisdiction, it has no power to enter an order of civil sanction against a defendant. See Endischee, 141 Ariz. at 79, 685 P.2d at 144; Kadota, 125 Ariz. at 134, 608 P.2d at 71. We agree with the superior court judge that the order of civil sanction entered against appellee by the Paradise Valley Magistrate's Court is void for lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm the judgment of the superior court. Footnotes 1. Note: The Honorable Susan R. Bolton, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge, was

for our safety or Big Brother?

by vcheng on Fri Feb 13 08:42:18 PST 2009

from: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/134428 Speed cameras record streaming video 24/7 Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services January 22, 2009 - 4:52PM , updated: January 22, 2009 - 5:32PM Surprised state lawmakers learned Thursday that the photo enforcement cameras they authorized last year to catch speeders are actually taking - and keeping - videos of everyone who passes. The information came out as a House panel debated legislation to outlaw the operation of fixed and mobile cameras on state roads. Backers of the legislation complained that the cameras are really designed to generate revenue and not to improve public safety. But they learned that the cameras do more than snap still photos of those clocked driving at least 11 miles over the speed limit. In fact, they actually are recording streaming video around-the-clock. Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, said what's worse is that Redflex Traffic Systems, the private company hired by the state to set up and operate the cameras, advertises that it has technology that actually can scan in the license plates of every vehicle that passes the cameras. And that, Biggs said, allows creation of a database that can find out where people have been at any given time. Biggs said there is no expectation of privacy on public roads. "But this is more invasive than ever experienced," he said. Foes of photo enforcement weren't the only ones who appeared troubled by the revelation. Rep. Eric Meyer, D-Paradise Valley, voted to keep the system alive, saying he believes it saves lives. But Meyer said lawmakers need to address the issue of whose photos are taken and kept by the government. "That absolutely concerns me," he said. Rep. Sam Crump, R-Anthem, said he crafted HB2106 because last year's legislation authorizing the Arizona Department of Public Safety to set up the cameras never got a full debate. Instead, it was tucked into the state budget, a move he said was designed more to raise money to pay for various programs than to actually benefit public safety. DPS Cmdr. Thomas Woodward said the evidence shows that when the cameras went up, both the number and severity of accidents went down. Crump said he doesn't believe that to be the case. But the discussion quickly turned after Woodward revealed that Redflex had actual around-the-clock videos from each of the fixed and mobile cameras. Biggs said that little bit of information has been kept from both lawmakers and the public. "At the bare minimum, everybody should be made privy to the fact that if you're driving on everybody's highways we're taping you, 24/7, and we're going to hold it for 90 days," he said. DPS Lt. James Warriner said there's a legitimate reason for doing the recording and keeping the tapes. He said they have proven useful in finding hit-and-run drivers and even in identifying someone who stole a motorcycle. Warriner said the videos are for law enforcement use only and not a public record. Biggs, however, said that doesn't mean others won't be able to access those tapes. He said that information might prove useful to attorneys or private investigators in civil or divorce cases who might seek to prove to a court that someone was not where he or she was supposed to be. Warriner conceded the videos could, in fact, be used that way if a lawyer could get a subpoena. "If a judge signs off on that and orders us to release it, we're going to have to release it," he said. But Warriner said such a court order would have to be issued within 90 days of the event or there would be nothing for his agency to produce. Warriner said, though, his agency is willing to stop the around-the-clock taping if that is what lawmakers want. "We are acting under what the legislators gave us last year," he said. "If they see fit to make changes, we'll go out and do it. We just want to keep the program because we know it's making an impact on lives and the public." At this point, the future in doubt, the committee voted 5-2 to kill the program which, in turn, would eliminate the videos. Meyer voted against the bill, saying his main concern is public safety. "I'm approaching this from my history of service in the emergency department (of hospitals) where I see the result of the accidents that occur on a freeway," he said. "These systems seem to dramatically reduce the number of accidents and increase the safety of our freeways." Meyer said the program could be saved - and some of the objections addressed - by altering the laws governing how the photo enforcement system is operated, including the use of the video cameras. An aide to Gov. Jan Brewer said she was studying the contract - as well as how the photo enforcement system was adopted as part of the budget process - before deciding whether it should be canceled.

Maybe somebody is beginning to see the light.....

by vcheng on Fri Feb 13 08:19:49 PST 2009

from: http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2009/01/19/daily50.html Thursday, January 22, 2009 Arizona House committee approves speed-camera ban for state highways Phoenix Business Journal - by Mike Sunnucks An Arizona legislative panel voted 5-2 in favor of a state bill to ban traffic speeding cameras on highways. The Arizona House of Representatives’ Transportation and Infrastructure Committee voted to move along House Bill 2106, which would ban the use of speeding cameras on state highways. The ban would apply to both state and local governments. The state approved speed cameras last year and has been installing them on highways in the Phoenix area and elsewhere. Speeders pay $181.50 fines for violating speed limits. Critics say the cameras are aimed more at revenue collection than safety. Advocates say the cameras reduce speeding, create safer roads and allow police to focus resources elsewhere. The ban would not apply to local streets, where cities such as Scottsdale and Paradise Valley have cameras.

Re: The Guy in the Prius... [lemko]

by Mr_Shiftright on Sat Aug 30 11:05:32 PDT 2008

Vipers and Harleys don't work where I live. All they portray is a reflection of what they are---crude and noisy. "Know Your Audience" right? Isn't that what the best entertainers do? I realize that savagery has a visceral appeal, I"m not denying it, but man you ride a Harley in San Francisco and you're going to be drinking beer by yourself in a bar with broken windows and a noisy ceiling fan. Good luck, pard. Not that I would consider a Prius a ticket to paradise for a man or woman on the prowl--that's pretty silly, too. But a Prius has a lot of appeal to techno-geeks, and if you are in Geekland, like Silicon Valley area, it makes sense that you will get kudos for driving one. It's like driving an iPhone. They are almost non-cars in a way. At least I respect the Viper for what it can do on a race track. And I respect the Prius for what it can do technologically. The Harley to me is just a marketing success, I don't get why anyone would actually want one. It's not a very good motorcycle, and I've driven many types of bikes. It's about as sexy as a washing machine to me. :P