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.