If you throw a party for 20,000 people with the potential for 50,000 party crashers, yes.
And no, the people attending have not already paid for the service or it wouldn’t have been an extra cost.
The Jackson didn’t have to have a public memorial. He wasn’t a state official like say Princess Diana, (of course I’m not so sure she was still a state offical when she died was she?).
A few million is a drop in the hat to some of these stars, I think it’ll be intersting to see if any of them who “loved” Michael would be willing to forgot the cost. I mean come on a million isn’t much to all these famous people. Janet alone should be able to come up with that.
I think it’s ironic that all across American last week on MSNBC I heard how small towns had to give up having Independence Day celebratons or big cities cut down displays of fireworks to 15 mintues, due to budget issues, yet Jackson can have a gold plated coffin?
I realize it’s only plated but gold? What is he a pharaoh? If they can afford gold that will be dumped into the ground and not used, not even be able to be seen, they can afford to send the city some money. Or simply have done without it.
When was the last time a head of state’s funeral got this much hoopla? I’m thinking Nasser or JFK.
It’s not an extra cost its poor city planning and budgeting. They have a 20,000 seat arena that the City actively encouraged be built there. Why is it surprising when 20,000 people show up to use it?
Well I had a controlled environment with private security capable of handling the 20,000 invited guests. Why is it my responsibility for how they get to my place or crimes that may committed against them or by them along on the way there? They are responsible adults. I can see the logic behind wanting to bill me for their safety I did invite them and all. I disagree with it but there is room for debate.
Its also been stated in this thread that the City overestimated the resources needed for the event. Why should the Jackson family have to pay for that overestimate? They got no say on the number of resources that may be needed. There is no real evidence any resources were necessary for the event.
Now those other 50,000 people I didn’t even invite them. Why should I be responsible for those people?
I have an upcoming Pride event. I’m sure their will be protesters how much should I have to pay for each of them to protesting against my event?
When civil rights marches were occur should we have bill the leader of those movements?
I personally don’t want to see people right to free speech and assembly to stripped because you’ve decided its Ok for the government to put a price on it.
Reagan’s funeral was in two cities. It started with morning services in DC, then the whole hoopla flew to LA for another service and the actual burial.
I’m sure the huge amout of people that flew to California contributed to some revenue raised by the state - airline ticket sales, food, parking, and so on.
What gets me is when 1 man (ok to be fair under 1000) visits a city and the taxpayers foot the $200,000,000 bill.
Especially when at the end of the day security still fails (If you dont wanna watch the whole show, start at 2:30)
Michael Jackson’s memorial wasn’t in the city’s budget and unless the event generated more tax revenue than it cost the city then the cost should be allocated to the event.
They shouldn’t and is an arguable point for lawyers.
Because your event drew them requiring the services of the city.
Yes, you should have to pay for the services necessary for the event. My city got tired of paying for security for KKK rallies so they simply charged them in advance for the security.
Sorry, slight hijack - are neo-nazi rallies permitted?? Just asking, because here (aus) such a rally would be illegal… I really find it strange that in the modern world, the KKK hasn’t been made an illegal group… I know, free speech and all that… but c’mon.
The thought police haven’t made it to our shores yet.
The courts have already found your city is acting unconstitutionally by doing so. I am surprised your city has not been sued for charging them.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Forsyth_County_v_Nationalist_Movement
That case seems to be why cities have to endure the costs of huge spectacles. Legally they can’t charge for the maintaining of public order.
Currently for the MJ funeral the city is attempting to sue AEG(company owning the Staples Center) to recover some of the costs. The lawsuit will likely fail. It is more an attempt to publicly guilt them into paying. They cite the huge amount of publicity the Staples Center got for the event is positive marketing that they will profit from.
It is reasonable to me for a city to request donations to help offset such costs and I think entities profiting on such events should be morally obligated to share some of the profits if they exist. I do not however think they should be legally obligated.
I heard this morning that the website raised $17K toward offsetting the cost of security.
In Germany they only have to pay for monocles.
Much cheaper
You seemed to have dropped your sense of humor somewhere. Lighten up; I meant no such thing.
Yeah, I read that it kept crashing.
CNN reports that the cost of the whole affair was $1.4 million, to a city already almost 600 mil in debt.
They also reported that it took a third of the LA police to secure the memorial service.
I’m sorry, but that’s just excessive.
I agree, but at the same time, what’s the alternative? They have to protect people. If the Staples Center agreed to hold the memorial, I don’t see how the city had any choice but to provide security. Question: Could the city prohibit the gathering as a “public nuisance” or similar?
If the Jackson family decided on a huge public spectacle for a service, then I can’t help but think that they should have to pay for security. This was a memorial service/funeral for a famous person not an ex-President.
I also take issue with people trying to compare this type of an event to a protest. They aren’t the same thing.
If the city was unaware the event was going to take place they could disband it as a ‘clear and present danger.’ As far as I’m aware the event was scheduled in accordance of seeking a permit the same way any other non-profit would have done.
People have a right to gather. The state has an obligation to protect its people. I feel any attempt to stop a public gathering is wrong. I also think it is wrong for the state to turn around and say we are not interested in protecting its people by trying to pass that obligation to someone other then the state.
The Jackson’s extended themselves and allowed a format of open invitation for the nation to grieve the loss of a person who was important to many. Based on the attendance of the event people were obviously interested in it happening. If the Jackson family had roads closed down and police stationed everywhere for their own interest I could understand them eating the costs.
The state, in interest of protect its people, closed down roads and provided security for the people of the state not for the Jackson family. If people didn’t choose to gather there would be no need for the resources.
People attending are free willed they can go where they want. The costs incurred are not because the Jackson family they are because the people who choose of there own free will to go there.
Why is it fair to bill the Jackson’s? Wouldn’t it be more fair to bill the people attending the event as they are the reason the resources used were necessarily?
You are correct it is not a protest. It is however an assembly of people so is subject to the same First amendment protections a protest is offered.
I decide to have a huge family reunion, rent a local facililty, get all the permits I need, and have an all out party for five thousand of my cousins. I have bands, I have food, I have fireworks. Should I be able to claim that the state is obligated to protect me, and my right to gather? Should I be able to require police at the nearby intersections, to direct traffic, when we all leave after the fireworks?
Since I’m already paying for bands and fireworks, I decide to advertise in the local paper that anyone is welcome to come hear the music and watch the show. Instead of my five thousand well-behaved cousins, we now have an additional five thousand rather sketchy neighbors. Now do I get to have the city eat all the costs for traffic control and safety? I’m not doing this for myself, I’ve doing it to allow everyone to participate.
I should be able to use the same arguments to have free city services at my party. The costs aren’t because I invited all those people, they are because all those people decided to come.
In short, why is it fair to bill the Jacksons? Because the Jacksons threw a party, and lots of people came.
Yes the state is obligated to protect you. Are you under the impression they wouldn’t?
[/QUOTE]
Should I be able to require police at the nearby intersections, to direct traffic, when we all leave after the fireworks?
[/QUOTE]
No you can’t require they have police officers do anything, nor were the Jackson’s given that luxury. The state has say in what they do. If they decide the best way to look out for you and your guests and the surrounding populous safety is to close roads and redirect traffic that is their decision.
Yes you do. The only issue for debate is if it is on private property the costs of maintaining order on the property might be on you. In the case of the MJ funeral the state did not pay for the private security the Staples center provides for their events. The costs incurred by the state were for services outside the Private property. If your looking to make sure the city eats all the costs you should consider a public park or such were the city is responsible for maintaining order
You can. There is nothing to indicate you would not be treated equally.
As bad as these groups are, and if they aren’t actively harming someone, free speech trumps hate. Every time. Sorry if you don’t feel that way. Doesn’t mean I condone hate, but appreciate free speech just about every time assuming nobody is getting hurt no matter the topic.