Oh, I do, too. I cherish my right to complain about the cost of freedom! 
Rock | LA | Hard Place
It strikes me that this is a graceful way to handle what is an unusual one-time expense. If Jackson’s fans are willing to pony up (and Lord knows they seem plenty devoted), maybe the city can gain some significant cost reduction from this gambit, thereby moderating their financial responsibility for what many will see as a frivolous event, especially with the way things are in California.
Just to be clear, this is a “Night Court” reference, isn’t it?
No, actually, that’s just how I pictured it. But a nice reference, nonetheless.
How very Un-American of you. The freedom to peacefully protest is a fundamental right. You don’t like it, don’t let the door etc.
Would you rather live in a city where the Mayor is begging for tourist money to come and revitalize a barren downtown, and coughs up tax credits and breaks galore to “entice” businesses to move downtown?
Or would you rather live in a city where the Mayor is suffering an embarassment of tourist/economic riches and has to worry about spending some of the revenue his bustling town generates because it’s too popular?
For those of you arguing that this is part of the cost of being a city, where do you draw the line?
If the circus came to town, and wanted to use the old fashion form of advertising, by marching in a parade through the center of town, does the city pay so the circus can make money?
Next time the local baseball team wins the penant, does the city pay to cover the parade/party? Technically, the team isn’t making money off this event, but they are a money making entity, and the PR isn’t going to hurt.
Personally, I draw the line at taxpayers paying for events held by/for moneymaking entities. And really, the memorial service for Jackson was about the moneymaking entity, not about the person. A vast majority of the people involved never new MJ at any level. All they knew was his music, his shows and the news he made.
If his family can afford to have him buried in a gold plated coffin, if people are flying in from around the world to attend, and tickets were being scalped, then the city of LA and the taxpayers shouldn’t be picking up the cost of police and such.
Does anyone know who paid for the cost of the venue? I haven’t read anything about that.
Personally I am a little skeptical about these kind of “costs”. I cannot believe that the extra sales tax revenue to the city (and the general good to the city of that amount of extra revenue going to its businesses) of hundreds of thousands of people traveling to and staying there out weighs the policing cost.
I mean cities spend huge amounts trying to get tourists to visit them, and while I see 100,000s of them turning up at once presents some issues, it can only be a good thing on balance IMO.
If someone has some numbers to prove me wrong I’d like to see them.
<obscure reference> Just charge Fonebone. </obscure reference>
The costs exist because a million people show up. The cities obligations are to the people showing up and the people of the city.
The event organizers are providing free ‘entertainment’ Should we limit the ability the circus or the baseball team has to express their right to free speech because they happen to be popular and a lot of people may want to watch them? If a man starts juggling in a public park and a hundred people happen to stop and watch do we send him a bill for the addition police attention the crowd might require?
In the case where members of the circus or baseball team are being paid to show up I can see a reasonable argument the people paying should have to endure some cost. If they are volunteering I can’t see the justification for restricting their rights.
The reality of this is that LA is strapped for cash and the cost should be passed on to anyone who wants to use city(public) money for a funeral. Police who escort funerals don’t do it for free and this is no different. If the event brings in tourist dollars then it’s a simple calculation to figure out the difference. To get some idea of the revenue it would have to generate all you have to do is divide the tax rate into the cost of extra public monies spent. In this case $4 million divided by 6% would be roughly $67 million. If he family didn’t want to pay for the city’s services then the city should have denied them from holding the event there.
Personally, I find it disturbing that they shut a highway down for this.
As it turns out, all those great preparations may not have been necessary. Aside from the actual ticket holders, hardly anybody showed up outside:
Don’t you mean Phoney Bone?
Yes, Don Martin is sorely missed.
Anyway, I thought Elton John brought his own security to his concerts, or at least that ticket sales paid for it.
The families rented(guessing) a stadium to hold a funeral service, the service also included a funeral progression. The event site is held and operated by a private company. What exactly does the city have the ability to deny? Do they tell a private company they can’t allow the Jackson’s to rent their building? Tell the Jackson family they can’t have a funeral progression for the deceased?
The cities services were not required for the event. The Staples Center regularly hosts hundreds of people and has its own security force to keep things orderly inside. The cities concern was what happened on public property outside the center. As I mentioned earlier the city could have not sent any additional police resources and hoped nothing went wrong.
If people are going to gather a city has a choice they can be prepared to host them or they can send riot police to break them up. My guess is hosting them is cheaper but don’t have numbers either way
Yes. They could require them to pay for city services up front plus a sufficient insurance bond to cover additional adhoc services.
Speaking of Huge Spectacles…
They can tell the Jacksons, or the Lakers, or the Shriners, that any costs incurred by the city, because of the planned event, must be covered by the group throwing the event.
If I wanted to rent a stadium, I would expect to pay for the ticket takers and the clean up crew. Why shouldn’t I expect to pay for the police to direct traffic and handle crowd control?
It depends. If LA has a stadium that seats 20,000 and 20,000 people show up to use it, the city should stop whining about its bad planning. Someone made a buck off of this spectacle and, if the city was subjected to some extraordinary expense, that “somebody” should be presented with a bill from the city.
On the other hand, Selma Alabama was caught by surprise by a big protest march–caused by Selma’s own depraved and immoral racist practices. They had to eat the cost and deservedly so.
I pity the poor suckers who lived near Woodstock in 1969. They absolutely did not sign on for the freakshow they endured and should not have paid a nickel for their inconvenience, but kind of did.
The costs incurred are not because of the Jacksons the Lakers or the Shriners. It is because the city is trying to keep the people attending the event safe. Those people have already paid for this service by means of taxes.
If I throw a party at my house should I have to pay to make sure none of my potential guests are shot on the way over?