LA needs donations to cover MJ Memorial

[LAblondeGPhi]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

All good reasons for the city to have asked the Jackson family to come up with the costs for the extra city services (police, etc.) that would be used for this. If the city is in such dire straits, and it knew that this would be such a public spectacle, it should have approached the family about funding.

If it did so and the family refused, then that's a different story.

I don't know if the City made an official request to the Jackson family or event organizers for donations, but I think that it is likely they did.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Was there a fee waiver given for the Jackson memorial?

I don't believe the memorial organizers requested street closures, additional police, etc. Fee waivers are requested by organizers who would otherwise have to pay to have their event take place and who are requesting permission and/or services from the City. If the organizers of this event did not explicitly need to get permission from the City to have the event as it was planned, then fee waivers would not apply.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

If CA is in such dire straits, there shouldn't have been such a waiver issued, unless they thought that the revenues of the event (tax dollars from local businesses, revenues to government-provided services, etc.) would outweigh the costs.

I think you mean "if the City is in such dire straights", since the state of the state's finances is only tangentially problematic for this particular event.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I just feel very uncomfortable with the city "fundraising" from citizens to cover the costs for a private individual's funeral and memorial service. If anyone should be lobbied for these funds, it should be Jackson's friends and family.

Thousands of people benefited and/or took advantage of this memorial service, not just the family, so why is it inappropriate to request for donations? Isn't it better to ask the guy who got to the Staples Center at 6 am for a little reimbursement than to take it from the tax dollars of Joe Shmoe who could care less?

If you recall, the City was able to find private donors to help pay for the Lakers' championship parade, and most people applauded that move. Granted, Mayor Villaraigosa, who is excellent at fundraising, was out of town while this event was being planned, so acting Mayor Jan Perry did what she could before the event.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Also, what is this element of First Amendment assembly rights that you're claiming?

Namely, if hoards of people spontaneously gather near the Staples Center to express their grief, can the City rightfully refuse them to gather, even if it's in the middle of the street and disruptive to pretty much everyone? The answer is "not really", unless there is a significant safety concern. In particular, larger cities, which have already faced law suits about these issues, tend to be a little bit more gun shy about shutting down anything that could resemble First Amendment.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

...but in this case, I think something could have or should have been worked out with the Jackson family (if it wasn't already) to privately fund this level of police protection.

I agree with this bit. I would have hoped that the Jackson family would have pitched in more money, or that the organizers of the event had charged even a couple of dollars for entry to the event to offset costs. It could have been handled a bit better, but on the whole, it was a crappy situation that would have been next to impossible for the City to pull off without significant complaint.

In general, I think it's too easy for people to complain about how government works without really bothering to understand the complexities of the situations that governments face.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by LAblondeGPhi

In general, I think it's too easy for people to complain about how government works without really bothering to understand the complexities of the situations that governments face.

I have an excellent understanding of how cities (large and small) and state governments work, but I agree with your general point.

As to the "Right to Assemble" point - I'm a law student about to finish law school, so I understand the general idea of it as it relates to the First Amendment; I was just a bit confused as to how it would cause a problem in this case. I'm no expert on the Right to Assemble, but I would imagine there's case law out there that restricts the rights of citizen to congregate in areas where a high concentration of people would put public safety at risk.

[LAblondeGPhi]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

As to the "Right to Assemble" point - I'm a law student about to finish law school, so I understand the general idea of it as it relates to the First Amendment; I was just a bit confused as to how it would cause a problem in this case. I'm no expert on the Right to Assemble, but I would imagine there's case law out there that restricts the rights of citizen to congregate in areas where a high concentration of people would put public safety at risk.

I could definitely be stepping all over the already blurry lines about the right to assemble. I'll freely admit that. Additionally, you probably do have a better understanding of many of the technical aspects of where this would stand.

At least in my dealing with the City regarding some types of street closures, LAPD errs on the other side of Caution's back fence. They don't just want to have a case that's defensible in court, they want to have a case that would be thrown out for lack of grounds, but even better yet, never gets to that point in the first place.

Okay, I'm done now.

On a completely separate note, are you entering your 3L year or studying for the bar? At any rate, congrats for being almost done.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by LAblondeGPhi

At least in my dealing with the City regarding some types of street closures, LAPD errs on the other side of Caution's back fence. They don't just want to have a case that's defensible in court, they want to have a case that would be thrown out for lack of grounds, but even better yet, never gets to that point in the first place.

And I can definitely understand that - the last thing you want is some sort of crowd riot, or people getting hurt during this thing. I don't know that I have as much of a problem with the use of the LAPD, as I do with the method of paying for their use. But I agree the city was in a bit of a tough spot, especially if the Jackson famly is dragging its feet on reimbursing the costs.

(I'm entering my last semester, I graduate in January - not soon enough!)