ST. CHARLES COUNTY • St. Peters and two neighboring cities have launched a court challenge of the at the Nov. 4 election.
Their lawsuit, filed in St. Charles County Circuit Court, contends that the ban runs counter to state laws giving municipalities “exclusive control†over regulation of traffic on streets within their boundaries.
The suit also says the measure, a county charter amendment placed on the ballot by the County Council, goes beyond the powers given home-rule counties by the state.
People are also reading…
“No authority exists for the county to exercise such power,†the suit alleges.
County Councilman Joe Brazil, who sponsored the measure, reiterated Monday that the county’s attorneys believe that the measure — applying to both cities and unincorporated areas — is on firm legal ground.
“The people have the right to change the constitution of the county,†Brazil said, referring to the charter. “That’s what voters do.â€
Although the ban applies countywide, it was clearly aimed at St. Peters — which was the only place in the county using the cameras this year.
However, the city suspended their use in September until the Missouri Supreme Court rules on their overall future in the state.
Joining St. Peters as plaintiffs in the new lawsuit, filed last week, were the cities of O’Fallon and Lake Saint Louis, Dardenne Prairie Mayor Pam Fogarty and O’Fallon Councilman Jim Pepper.
, saying it would be an improper county encroachment on cities’ right to make their own decisions.
The lawsuit was expected after St. Peters’ mayor warned earlier this year that one was likely if the ban made it to the ballot and passed. .
The suit also complains that if the city isn’t allowed to resume using cameras because of the county ban, the city will lose revenue and incur additional costs in traffic control.
The suit also says the cameras, which had been used since 2006, led to a “significant reduction†in traffic violations and congestion on city streets.
Critics dispute the safety argument and say the cameras exist to fatten city budgets.
The plaintiffs also allege that the ballot title, Proposition Red Light Camera, was “biased, slanted, tainted, misleading and confusing to the average voter.â€
Brazil on Monday accused some plaintiffs of hypocrisy, noting that they had previously sought other county amendments affecting cities on other topics.
The Supreme Court earlier this month heard involving St. Peters, ºüÀêÊÓƵ and Moline Acres in ºüÀêÊÓƵ County.
The St. Peters case is over that the city red light camera ordinance conflicted with state law because convictions didn’t result in penalty points on a driver’s license.
City aldermen then in such cases but at the same time appealed the judge’s ruling.