Sykesville's speed camera ordinance might have to go to referendum, as a town resident claims he has enough names on his petition to force the matter to a town-wide vote.

Chris Martin, a resident of Boulder Court in town, sent an e-mail at 8:40 p.m. today saying he and his helpers collected 529 signatures to bring the ordinance to a referendum.

"Possibly the craziest 11 days of my life," Martin wrote. "We did it."

However, Sykesville government employees must verify the names are town residents and registered voters.

Martin needed 338 signatures and had until 12:01 a.m., Monday, March 15, to collect them, according to Town Manager Matt Candland, who said the town has 2,258 registered voters.

The town's charter says a petition to bring an ordinance to referendum must have 15 percent of the town’s registered voters, and be within 20 days of the passing of the ordinance.

A simple majority vote would decide the fate of the ordinance, Candland said.

On Feb. 22, the mayor and council voted 5-1 to approve a speed camera ordinance that establishes three school zones in town, and authorizes speed cameras to be used in those areas.

Councilman Leo Keenan cast the dissenting vote, while Councilman Scott Sanzone was absent.

The cameras would be established in three school zones around Ava Wanas Montessori School, Stepping Stones Pre-School and Sykesville Middle School,

Two people said they were unhappy with how the signatures were collected.

Elizabeth Guroff Armstrong turned to the Sykesville Main Street Facebook page to share her frustration.

According to Armstrong, two Ellicott City men came to her door today asking to sign the petition for Martin.

"As the mother of four boys who go to those schools and daycares and walk our streets to go to their school buses, I am very upset that people from Ellicott City would be interfering in our attempts to keep our children safe," she posted.

Janet O'Neill Jacobe also posted on Sykesville's Main Street page saying she didn't like the approach.

"I hope people don't sign something they don't understand," she wrote. "My husband shouted them off our porch."

Visit explorecarroll.com throughout the week for updates on the Sykesville speed camera referendum drive.

---

user comments (8)

user sykesvillian says...

Unfortunately many of those signing the peition have not heard the complete picture about the speeding problem versus the town's budget (which is insufficient to hire any additional Police much less pay the ones there much more than a minimally competitive wage), and the quantity of Police personnel available on any one shift to devote significant time to speed enforcement. Mr. Martin stopped by my house and presented only a few unsupported negative statements about the ordinance and his opinion (not fact) about why the Council passed the ordinance. No, they're not looking to make money. They want to address the speeding problem and the cameras are the only method that is financially self-sustaining - requires no additrional Town read-taxpayer) revenue. Mr Martin does not attend Town meetings to learn about the budget issues that the Town faces, he only shows up at the Pubnlic Hearing to complain about "Big Brother". Nor does Mr Martin live on a street where speeding is a problem - he lives on the head end of a quiet cul-de-sac. So Mr. Martin has no problem giving criminals (speeders) continued freedom to endanger our community's citizens by forcing a referendum to be voted upon by a populace to whom HE has not presented the whole truth. Shame on you Sir.

Posted 1:18 PM, 03.15.10

• Permalink

user resident says...

The cameras do not control speed nor make for a safer environment, they take a picture of a car and then remind the owner of that vehicle two weeks later, they also do not stop you from continuing to speed. The cameras are not operated on weekends or past 8 P.M., are we then "unsafe" again, because there are not enough officers on the street? Police enforcement truly stops someone from speeding. There is something quite humiliating and socially embarrassing about being pulled over in your own town, there is no shame having your picture taken. To any one who has been pulled over, you know damn well you drive a bit more cautious after that experience. If the town cannot afford more officers, perhaps they should look into more permanent measures like rumble strips or speed bumps, they do work. The cameras, as they have said, will be removed when they feel like the drivers habits have changed, but then be reinstated again if needed, speed control devices like rumble strips and speed humps work 24/7 365 days a year. If they were so effective, wouldn't Montgomery Counties revenue from these cameras dropped way off, considering the majority of the drivers are commuters who pass the cameras every day? As for the referendum, it is now for the registered voters of Sykeville to decide, if you feel that Mr Martin was not telling the truth, I suggest you get out there and tell your version. Mr Martin did nothing wrong, he felt strong enough about a subject to go beyond bitching about it on a blog and got it to go to a town vote-let the town decide.

Posted 8:47 PM, 03.15.10

• Permalink

user casualobserver says...

This is too easy. User resident says " If they were so effective, wouldn't Montgomery Counties revenue from these cameras dropped way off, considering the majority of the drivers are commuters who pass the cameras every day?" Well, DUH, if the revenue has not dropped off, then speeders continue to finance the cameras out of their pockets which relieves the county from revenue outlay. Since neither of us knows the exact locations of the Montgomery County cameras, we don't know how large of a potential driver base passes by those cameras on a daily/weekly basis. Evidently, there are enough new speeders to warrant keeping them in service. Portable cameras can be moved to where Police experience the most complaints within the school zones - which is exactly what Sykesville intends. As to humps or rumble strips - you will not find police enthusiastic about them because they DON'T WORK. User Resident writes,"I suggest you get out there and tell your version." I offer no "version". Please read the Fact Sheet that the Town published via it's News Flash email system. Every fact in there was presented in clear detail by Chief Williams at the public hearings, at which the attendance was maybe 40 citizens including reporters. No one ever misrepresented the facts and claimed that the cameras will eliminate speeding. If their presence slows down one speeder and saves a person's life, they will have been an overwhelming success.

Posted 12:00 AM, 03.16.10

• Permalink

user resident says...

If all they are doing is making money, how does that help the "safety" of the State of Maryland? The Montgomery County Police Department has a hiring freeze on right now, wasn't the money generated from the cameras to go towards "public safety"? If it is not being used to put more police on the street, to actually slow the cars down, instead of taking a picture of them, then what good is the program? If Sykesville moves the cameras around, they will just move the issue to other areas of the town for that week/month, the cameras do not offer a long term solution. As for the speed bumps, if they don't work, why are they in front of Wal Mart, through Parrish Park community, and come to think of it actually most shopping centers in town have them.

Posted 8:01 AM, 03.16.10

• Permalink

user casualobserver says...

User Resident and anyone else reading this Comment thread - please read the Speed Camera Fact sheet as posted on Sykesville's web site (www.sykesville.net). It very clearly states the FACTS (not opinions or myths) about the program.

Posted 6:29 PM, 03.16.10

• Permalink

user says...

I believe you are missing my point-the cameras do not make a safer environment-they do not slow people down, they only photograph a car-then send the owner a $40 bill two weeks later. No where in the "fact Sheet" is there a mention of how much "safer" we will be, the majority of the sheet is justification for getting the speed cameras approved and placed. I have heard more talk over how much and where the money generated can be spent, than any intelligent discussion as to how these cameras are going to slow anyone down. My 79 year old mother had her picture taken by one of these cameras, when she received the bill for $40, she saw it was her in the picture and paid the fine, but did that stop her from speeding on the day the picture was taken-NO. The cameras are an ineffective choice for the town of Sykesville, they need to look at other more permanent solutions.

Posted 9:38 PM, 03.16.10

• Permalink

user says...

No type of enforcement ever prevents people like your mother from speeding in the first place (hmmm, it is becoming clear why you are opposed to the cameras"¦) - it is the "getting caught" that tends to make an impression on most folks. Once burned, are they going to speed by that radar trap or camera again? If you are driving above the speed limit, do you instinctively slow down when you see a Police car or a radar trap? Would you make sure you are at or reasonably close to the posted limit if you knew speed sensors & cameras were active up ahead? We all know the answer, regardless of how much you continue to try and complain about cameras' supposed ineffectiveness. The only reason to deploy them is to make drivers aware that their speed is being monitored where the cameras are deployed (it isn't done sneakily - there are signs posted and the camera setup is a big tall piece of equipment you can see from far down the road). That is also the only effect of radar traps (although they are done more sneakily)- make people aware that the traps exist so they will either slow down or risk getting caught. No system is perfect or 100% effective. The camera deployment will pay for itself, something that the Town can afford. Sure they would love to have enough money to hire more Police, but if you have been following the budget issues, you would know that isn't going to happen anytime in the foreseeable future.

Posted 11:05 PM, 03.16.10

• Permalink

user resident says...

My point about adding my mother to the topic was to show that most don't know they were photographed till after-two weeks-after the fact. I am not opposed to the cameras because my mother got a ticket, nor am I opposed to them because I got one either-nor ever have in Sykesville. If my mother was pulled over, I guarantee you she would have been more cautious on the rest of her journey. They do not stop speeders-they only photograph them, traffic calming devices strategically placed slow down vehicles, the cameras or even "speed traps" still allow the driver to increase their speed after passing the enforcement area. If the town cannot afford to hire more police, perhaps they should ask for assistance from the State and County police officers-why was this never an option before?

Posted 8:39 AM, 03.17.10

• Permalink