LA has set up a Paypal site, hoping that people with donate money to offset the $1.5-4million they expect to pay, to provide services (police, fire, emergancy, etc) for today’s Jackson memorial.
When I first heard this my thought was “What the hell? With the mess that California is in, why are they spending that kind of money.”
OK, I get that you can’t have this circus without crowd control and medical personnel, but why the heck isn’t the city billing the organizers. I feel the exact same way when I hear about millions being spent because a baseball team won the World Series, and throws a party.
So the debate is, is there any reason at all that a city should be expected to take on these extra costs? Is there a public good being done here? Is there a public obligation to allow this? (And while I’m asking, would you consider donating?)
Mr. K and I were discussing this yesterday. I think that in this case, the estate should cough up the dough out of the goodness of their hearts, because they can. However, in most cases, you can’t reasonably expect a given entity to be able to afford it, and yet people still need to feel safe in that situation. If I was there, I don’t think I’d have a problem with paying a few bucks to help cover the cost of a safe, secure event.
I don’t suppose it’s any different from the kind of extraordinary support public services might be expected to provide for a major sporting event, carnival, or some such.
Maybe it will all sort itself out - a major influx of people means local business will thrive, and will presumably have to pay some kind of taxes on that extra income.
The cities also benefit from the business and tourism that comes with huge events though. Just ask anyone who’s had to find parking in NYC on New Year’s Eve. (And of course part of that goes into tax revenue.)
The City probably decided it didn’t want to have to be seen as the ones who pulled the plug on the event, so they decided not to worry about it at the moment. I suspect there will be some behind-the-scenes negotiations.
I say no. Every two-bit mouthbreathing group of butthurt whiners in America seems to want to march on the mall, and DC has to pay umpteen bajillion dollars in police overtime, road closings, etc. The Fed picks up a lot of the tab, but they’re slow payers and tend to hold payment up over utterly assinine BS.
Considering how much rock concerts of the Michael Jackson, Rolling Stone, Bruce Sprigsteen, et al caliber cost, I think the venue should simply have charged $100 per ticket to the memorial. There’s $1.75 million right there.
Yes, some “poor, ordinary fans” may not have been able to afford them. But I doubt MJ or his family would have been weeping overmuch at the thought of those same fans being unable to buy tickets to a regular MJ/Jackson Five concert.
You mean people who wish to express their opinions by using their right to peaceably assemble and express free speech?
There is legal obligation to allow these huge spectacles. When such spectacles occur the city has interest in making sure the city remains safe and undamaged.
I suppose a city could refuse absorb the cost to provide police officers and such and simply pray nothing goes wrong.
Occasional big public gatherings are an important part of urban life. The suggestion that it is not part of the function of a city government to support these is ludicrous.
That’s not to say that the organisers, or those who benefit in a particular way, shouldn’t also support them. There has to be a degree of negotiation and partnership here.
But, although this could have been organised as a commercial event, it wasn’t. It was a large funeral/memorial service. Larger than most, perhaps, but if those who orgnised this funeral are expected to pay, would the same expectation arise in all funerals large enough to require special support from the city?
The people who performed at the memorial get paid in the millions. Let them pass the hat. LAUSD can’t even afford summer session this year; if I had a spare dollar, I’d donate it for that, not for this nonsense.
Of course, but one feels much less charitable towards that sentiment when they are unable to get to and from work because of it. Same goes for dignataries’ motorcades. I hope you aren’t under the impression that I am in favor of suppressing democracy or anything; it’s just that some of the protest groups are being silly. I’m not talking about anti-war or Free Tibet types of things - it’s more like “Justice for left-handed Salvadorian Cigar Rollers” feeling the need to march down Pennsylvania Ave. during rush hour - that is the annoyance.
To my knowledge the permit process fees for non-profit assemblies are minimal or non-existent. Like Washington DC for example has no listed fees for a parade permit, people are free to form up a parade and march provided they apply 15 days ahead of time and give an estimate of what will be entailed(number of people, vehicles, if there will be firearms involved etc. A permit is how the city is informed people are planning to assemble. The permit process is not meant to be a way for the city to profit, it’s only meant to allow them to be prepared. Historically denying permits has ended with cities to be on the wrong side of the constitution. Requiring huge fees for permits would certainly infringe of peoples rights to free speech and assembly.
The reason a city can break up an un-permitted gathering is ‘it presents a clear and present danger’ to the city as they can not be reasonable expected be prepared for the event and do not have the resources to effectively keep everyone safe.
As I have lived inside the beltway for a time I certainly understand the pain and inconvenience involved. I simply view it as one of the costs of freedom.