LA needs donations to cover MJ Memorial

[LAblondeGPhi]

Originally Posted by Educatingblue

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/07/mic...ity/index.html

Apparently, LA is trying to get people to donate money to help cover the unexpected cost of the Michael Jackson memorial today. Pretty sad that we have to worry about money in comparison to the safety of thousands of people. I donated a few bucks.

Educatingblue, I heart you. Good for you!

Originally Posted by Kevin

It's the city's job to provide basic services like police and fire. If they can't provide those things, either services should be scaled back or taxes should be raised. It's absurd that a city the size of L.A. doesn't have the wiggle room in their budget to plan for something like this. Imagine how screwed they'd be if a real emergency happened?

Los Angeles is in a state of fiscal emergency, much like many local and state governments across this nation are at the moment. The City of Los Angeles is currently faced with a $500 million budget deficit. You know what a big factor in that is? Pension plans - City pension plans have lost about half their 2007 value. (Wanna blame the City for that, or the stock market?) Not to mention the fact that the state of California is withholding monies promised to local governments, or reducing budgeted allocations for practically all expenditures.

There's really no wiggle room when we're in the worst economy we've seen in a generation. The City of Los Angeles is dealing with a 10% PLUS unemployment rate - higher than the national average. Sales tax, business tax and property tax revenues are all on the decline, even though sales tax in the state of California recently went up by 0.5% to help cover the state's deficit.

A budget was recently passed in the City of Los Angeles that calls for nearly universal salary cuts and budget cuts to every department, with the exception of Police and Fire, though they are looking at COLA deferrals like everyone else. The Mayor has worked tirelessly to negotiate salary reductions, benefit reductions and early retirements from the City's union workers, since the City Council and the Mayor can only mandate layoffs and furloughs (not salary/benefit reductions) of union staff.

Now, as for this whole MJ debacle. The City is in the difficult position of being forced to ensure the public safety, despite the actions of private parties. The last year has seen a significant change in the City's special events policies: traditionally, big events such as award shows, marathons, parades, etc., received fee waivers for the street closures, additional cops and traffic mitigations that they require, with the understanding that the cultural or financial benefits to the City would outweigh the costs. The current policy no longer allows for fee waivers without significant exceptions.

However, the Jackson memorial was a slightly different kind of animal than a typical special event: the event itself was held at the Staples Center, a private venue, and the anticipated problems were going to be the result of average citizens NOT attending the event. Street closures and extra police were deemed necessary by the City, not necessarily the event organizers, because everyone was well aware of the possibility of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of average citizens crowding the streets to be close to the event. At this point, there is an element of the First Amendment's freedom of assembly rights, in addition to the obvious public safety concerns.

The City of Los Angeles would have been blasted for several courses of action over this - providing too few cops in the event of a major gathering, too many cops in the event of a smaller-than-expected turn out, or any cops at all by some folks.

Just my thoughts...

/soapbox

[BabyPiNK_FL]

I wonder why they didn't start packing the police up once they saw what the crowd was going to be like. I know they're telling people not to come in to work on certain days and that they're not going to be paid, so why not just say in advance that they may be asked to go home and not be paid for time after being relieved? (Not that this is right, but it would have given them some wiggle room).

I mean they went a little over the top with barracades 2 blocks away. And barely a person standing behind them.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by LAblondeGPhi

Los Angeles is in a state of fiscal emergency, much like many local and state governments across this nation are at the moment. The City of Los Angeles is currently faced with a $500 million budget deficit. You know what a big factor in that is? Pension plans - City pension plans have lost about half their 2007 value. (Wanna blame the City for that, or the stock market?) Not to mention the fact that the state of California is withholding monies promised to local governments, or reducing budgeted allocations for practically all expenditures.

There's really no wiggle room when we're in the worst economy we've seen in a generation. The City of Los Angeles is dealing with a 10% PLUS unemployment rate - higher than the national average. Sales tax, business tax and property tax revenues are all on the decline, even though sales tax in the state of California recently went up by 0.5% to help cover the state's deficit.

A budget was recently passed in the City of Los Angeles that calls for nearly universal salary cuts and budget cuts to every department, with the exception of Police and Fire, though they are looking at COLA deferrals like everyone else. The Mayor has worked tirelessly to negotiate salary reductions, benefit reductions and early retirements from the City's union workers, since the City Council and the Mayor can only mandate layoffs and furloughs (not salary/benefit reductions) of union staff.

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.

Originally Posted by LAblondeGPhi

Now, as for this whole MJ debacle. The City is in the difficult position of being forced to ensure the public safety, despite the actions of private parties. The last year has seen a significant change in the City's special events policies: traditionally, big events such as award shows, marathons, parades, etc., received fee waivers for the street closures, additional cops and traffic mitigations that they require, with the understanding that the cultural or financial benefits to the City would outweigh the costs. The current policy no longer allows for fee waivers without significant exceptions.

However, the Jackson memorial was a slightly different kind of animal than a typical special event: the event itself was held at the Staples Center, a private venue, and the anticipated problems were going to be the result of average citizens NOT attending the event. Street closures and extra police were deemed necessary by the City, not necessarily the event organizers, because everyone was well aware of the possibility of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of average citizens crowding the streets to be close to the event. At this point, there is an element of the First Amendment's freedom of assembly rights, in addition to the obvious public safety concerns.

Was there a fee waiver given for the Jackson memorial? 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 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.

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

Originally Posted by LAblondeGPhi

The City of Los Angeles would have been blasted for several courses of action over this - providing too few cops in the event of a major gathering, too many cops in the event of a smaller-than-expected turn out, or any cops at all by some folks.

Just my thoughts...

/soapbox

True, especially if people were injured in the big crowds...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.

[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.

[LAblondeGPhi]

Originally Posted by BabyPiNK_FL

I wonder why they didn't start packing the police up once they saw what the crowd was going to be like. I know they're telling people not to come in to work on certain days and that they're not going to be paid, so why not just say in advance that they may be asked to go home and not be paid for time after being relieved? (Not that this is right, but it would have given them some wiggle room).

I mean they went a little over the top with barracades 2 blocks away. And barely a person standing behind them.

I agree that police should have been scaled back once they realized that the crowds were not going to be quite the concern that was previously thought.

Not to give excuses... but one possible complication is that most City unions require a 4 hour minimum day, even in overtime situations. I'm not sure if it's the same for the police union, but if that's the case, then once a cop is there, s/he has to get paid for the 4 hours anyway, even if you send him/her home early. Yes, it seems kind of stupid, but it's to prevent City workers from blocking out, let's say a Saturday, to work, drive 45 minutes to an area, work for an hour, then drive 45 minutes home.

[Educatingblue]

Originally Posted by LAblondeGPhi

I agree that police should have been scaled back once they realized that the crowds were not going to be quite the concern that was previously thought.

Not to give excuses... but one possible complication is that most City unions require a 4 hour minimum day, even in overtime situations. I'm not sure if it's the same for the police union, but if that's the case, then once a cop is there, s/he has to get paid for the 4 hours anyway, even if you send him/her home early. Yes, it seems kind of stupid, but it's to prevent City workers from blocking out, let's say a Saturday, to work, drive 45 minutes to an area, work for an hour, then drive 45 minutes home.

I was going to say the same thing. I am not sure how it works for county/city employees, but most of us who work for the government do so on a contractual basis. For example, if they ask me to do XYZ in addition to my regular duties, they must pay for me to go/participate regardless of whether or not it turns out to be what the state thought.

If the event was initially supposed to be 2 hours (I believe the original listed time for the memorial was 1-3 hours), then they signed up for a few hours in the first place.

[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!)

[DGTess]

The right to assemble does not include the rights to have traffic stopped for you, to additional police protection - you're the one choosing to assemble, to cordon off areas for news vehicles, etc.

Not the state's responsibility. And a city that chooses to do so has elected officials who are selected to make these decisions within their responsibilities. If they can't, they can't. Those outside LA should not even be concerned with it.

[Kevin]

Seeing as how California is looking for the other 49 states to bail them out, I think it might actually be our business.

[AOII_LB93]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Seeing as how California is looking for the other 49 states to bail them out, I think it might actually be our business.

How is California looking for the rest of the US to bail them out? I live here, I work for the state as a teacher, and believe me when I tell you it's bad here. No other states are getting money from the feds? Oh wait...

I still stand by what I said before, this should be funded by the family and multimillion dollar "friends" of Jackson, not a city that is in dire financial straights. How is this any different than the Laker victory parade? That also should not be paid for by the city.

We pay a crapload in taxes that don't even cover the cost of what happens in this state(mainly because of the ridiculous union power - mine included- and out of control govt. spending). We just had the largest tax increase in recorded history of all the states are are ranked in #1 in the payment of a huge number of taxes...The state and city can not afford to be paying millions for bullcrap like this. Sales tax in my county is close to 10%, gas tax 18 cents of every gallon on top of the federal tax, state income tax, property tax, etc....I think we are paying enough to not have to pay for the funeral of someone who has enough rich friends to cover the costs.