[Vision2020] who pays for Megaload cops?

Donovan Arnold donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
Sat Sep 3 14:03:22 PDT 2011 

Paul, you wrote;
 
"What I don't agree with is trying to fob the cost of the protests off onto Exxon/Mobil, who is abiding by the laws in how it has been moving it's megaloads. That simply doesn't seem right to me."
 
Iunderstand your point. And it is a fairly valid one. However, I think if you saw it from another perspective you might change your mind.
 
Imagine that instead of it being Exxon coming to town, it was instead the circus. A for profit circus is going to use city and county resources. It is going to use police for crowd control, fireman and EMTs, doctors, nursees and medical/hospital staff put on alert and on duty. Traffic patterns will be disrupted and other businesses disrupted. Pollution caused by animals, people, and machines that will have to be cleaned up. There will strain on city resources and the budget. 
 
Now, do you think it reasonable the highly profitable circus be allowed to simple pay a $100 permit fee and pass the costs on to the city taxpayers? Or do you think that the people should have a say in how those extra costs will be covered?
 
Exxon Mobile is exactly the same situation.  Their presents in the city for a profit is going to put a strain on the city resources that will not be covered by the cost of the permission slip. The State of Idaho's legislature may not view what they are doing as illegal or unethical. However, I think a sizable number of people do. I am not a lawyer of course, by the State of Idaho is depriving private citizens of their property rights and putting their safety at risk without compensation which I think is in violation of the Constitution. And I think what they are doing to the environment is unethical. 
 
Donovan Arnold

From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
To: Art Deco <deco at moscow.com>
Cc: Moscow Vision 2020 <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 3, 2011 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] who pays for Megaload cops?



I fully support the right of people to protest about this issue.  I fully support the idea of civil disobedience as a method to effect change.  I have made no argument that the protests should be stopped or that the protesters be billed for the overtime hours worked by the extra police on duty.

What I don't agree with is trying to fob the cost of the protests off onto Exxon/Mobil, who is abiding by the laws in how it has been moving it's megaloads.  That simply doesn't seem right to me.  Not because they are a large corporation and my hidden conservative sensibilities force me to support them, but because they are doing nothing technically wrong here.  

In your example of the tea partyers holding up traffic, would you think it fair if you (as a delayed motorist) were billed for the costs of the extra police presence simply because you were delayed by them?  Because that's what billing Exxon/Mobil for the megaload protests would amount to.

Paul

By the way, it's nice to know that I have list members that are happy to tell me what it is I'm actually thinking and what my political views actually are - that way I don't have to rely upon my own inner dialog to find that out.  Bonus!


On 09/03/2011 10:36 AM, Art Deco wrote: 
What I find appalling in this discussion is the apparent lack of historical and contemporary knowledge of the importance and the results that have proceeded from the right of free expression from letters to the editor to demonstrations lasting years and involving millions of people in this country.
>
>Civil rights, environmental issues, anti-war issues, poverty issues, pro/anti-abortion issues, etc allow citizens the right and the opportunity to express their opinions and feelings.  It should be clear to all but the most ignorant and arrogant that demonstrations in these areas have influenced public policy.
>
>The right of free expression is one of the most important we have:  It allows us to struggle, sometimes haltingly and erroneously, towards the truth and towards finding values that make this a more just and habitable planet.
>
>We pay taxes for police and allied services, one of these services is protect our constitutional rights, including the right of free expression.  Except for a very nominal fees for parades and larger demonstration permits whose purpose would be to inform policing agencies and others that their services like enforcement, traffic control, etc may be needed, I am opposed to requiring citizens to pay fees, payments, and/or make other concessions of any legal kind simply to exercise a fundamental and very important constitutional right.
>
>Dissent (and agreement) has been a very important part of the history of this country.  I hope we do not try to stifle this dissent by making it only the province of those able to pay well.
>
>I also find it ironic and hypocritical, but not surprising, that the conservatives like Crabtree, Borden, and Rumelhart* are the anti-free expression advocates on this list [along with pathetic Henry Johnson in the DN]. [*Rumelhart claims not to be a conservative, but almost all his posts here espouse positions touted by conservatives.]
>
>I understand the position of the MPD to take steps to prevent serious consequences of someone's breaking the law.  That is part of their duties.
>
>It's the little Napoleans/Hitlers who wish to stifle dissent by making the dissenters pay to express their feelings that pose the greatest threat to free expression.
>
>Two years ago, I sat in traffic on Washington between 5th and 4th while a large group of tea partiers crossed Washington, most of them not in the crosswalks and hold up traffic a few minutes.   I do not agree completely with the tea party's analysis of the nation's problems and with their solutions of them -- I think many of them are ill-informed and delusional -- but I applaud their efforts to dissent in a public manner, even if a few minor laws were broken.  I would have been very vocal  and combative if someone had suggested that they would pay for whatever extra police services might be needed.
>
>Having been in on efforts to draft legislation to make megaload permiting more open, with easier to appeal provisions, to mitigate the inconvenience to other highway users and businesses, and to recover the cost of issuing the permits and the costs of usage above normal being picked up by the applicants, I can say that intense lobbying by big oil and others certainly tilted the playing field in their favor and no such legislation had a chance.  Money does talk, sometimes in very devious ways, both statewide and in Moscow.
>
>w.
>
>
>From: Jay Borden 
>Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 9:00 PM
>To: Paul Rumelhart ; Donovan Arnold 
>Cc: vision2020 
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] who pays for Megaload cops?
>
>
>Personally, I find much of this lunacy hilarious.
>
>Subscribers here utilize the V20 service to help organize/update on protester activity... 
>
>... which forces additional police response as a result of successful organized protests....
>
>... which causes the very same V20 crowd to blame Exxon for not picking up the tab....
>
>...... for the additional police.... 
>
>... to handle the additional protesters.
>
><slow clap>
>
>Bravo folks.... bravo.
>
>Jay
>
>Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless
>
>-----Original message-----
>
>From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>To: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
>>Cc: vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>Sent: Sat, Sep 3, 2011 01:13:28 GMT+00:00
>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] who pays for Megaload cops?
>>
>>
>>Here's my take on the "who pays?" issue. Exxon/Mobil has the proper permits, and is abiding by their use on a public highway. If there were no protesters, then there would be no cops needed on extra duty. Forcing Exxon/Mobil to pay is akin to a denial-of-service attack in the computer world. All you need to do, if you don't like someone or some company, is to stage a protest outside their place of business. The larger the better. Then the person or the business will have to pay for their protection from the police, regardless of whether or not they've done anything wrong. You might as well get a bunch of people to write letters in protest and then force whoever is the current target of their ire to pay for the paper, the envelopes, the postage, and their time.
>>
>>The only way I can see a justification for Exxon/Mobil paying for the policemen on extra duty is if they specifically contracted for them in order to protect the safety of their drivers. Which leads to the question: who authorized the extra duty for the police officers - the city, the police department, Exxon/Mobil or some other group?
>>
>>Paul
>>
>>P.S. I snipped Mayor Cheney and Councilman Lamarr's names from the to: list. I'm sure they get enough spam as it is and can choose whether or not to read the Viz on their own cognizance.
>>
>>On 09/02/2011 05:27 PM, Donovan Arnold wrote:
>>> Wayne,
>>> It has already been confirmed that Exxon is not paying the cost of the > permit. You can check the donation records of Idaho Republicans if you > don't believe they are getting something for this from Exxon. And the > US Attorney General office isn't going to do anything about it either > or any other politician because they are also owned and operated by > Exxon and a handful of corporations.
>>> Donovan Arnold
>>>
>>> *From:* Wayne Price 
>>> *To:* Donovan Arnold 
>>> *Cc:* Bill London ; vision2020 > ; nancy chaney ; Tom Lamar > 
>>> *Sent:* Friday, September 2, 2011 6:15 PM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] who pays for Megaload cops?
>>>
>>> Donovan,
>>>
>>> IF you can prove that, contact me off line and I'll give you a point > of contact at the US Attorney's Office to get in touch with.
>>>
>>> WMP
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 2, 2011, at 5:05 PM, Donovan Arnold wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wayne,
>>>> No, they didn't. They paid the politicians to change the law and make >> the people pay for the cost of the permit.
>>>> Donovan Arnold
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Wayne Price >
>>>> *To:* Bill London >
>>>> *Cc:* vision2020 > >; nancy chaney > >; Tom Lamar > >
>>>> *Sent:* Friday, September 2, 2011 5:35 PM
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] who pays for Megaload cops?
>>>>
>>>> Bill,
>>>>
>>>> EXXON paid for the permit which gave them the right to transport the >> loads legally.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wayne
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 2, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Bill London wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> WMP-
>>>>> my point exactly
>>>>> Exxon wants to play, Exxon should pay
>>>>> BL
>>>>> *From:* Wayne Price 
>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, September 02, 2011 4:21 PM
>>>>> *To:* Bill London 
>>>>> *Cc:* vision2020 ; nancy chaney >>> ; Tom Lamar 
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] who pays for Megaload cops?
>>>>> Didn't advocate making them "so expensive that those rights >>> disappear", but what is wrong with you play, YOU pay?
>>>>> WMP
>>>>> On Sep 2, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Bill London wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> WMP-
>>>>>> so your goal is to make freedom of expression and civil >>>> disobedience so expensive that those rights disappear?
>>>>>> BL
>>>>>> *From:* Wayne Price 
>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, September 02, 2011 2:05 PM
>>>>>> *To:* Bill London 
>>>>>> *Cc:* vision2020 ; nancy chaney >>>> ; Tom Lamar 
>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] who pays for Megaload cops?
>>>>>> So, some protesters show up and the local police respond and you >>>> want the folks that have the permits to pay?
>>>>>> WHEN the protesters break the laws, their fines should pay for the >>>> disturbances they cause. Now, who decided some 25 additional >>>> police officers were needed?
>>>>>> That dog won't hunt!
>>>>>> WMP
>>>>>> On Sep 2, 2011, at 1:38 PM, Bill London wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> According to newspaper reports, about 25 local cops (17 Moscow, 9 >>>>> county) were at the latest megaloads confrontation Thurs night in >>>>> downtown Moscow.
>>>>>>> Who is paying for all the overtime for those officers? I called >>>>> David Duke (Moscow police chief) who said that we are. The >>>>> taxpayers. You. Me. Us. We are spending money to help the >>>>> world’s richest corporation (Exxon/Mobil) get their equipment >>>>> delivered on time.
>>>>>>> Thankfully, Duke said that the city council will be discussing >>>>> this issue on Tuesday (Sept 6) at their regular meeting. I hope >>>>> the council tells Exxon to pay those costs.
>>>>>>> BL
>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>>>> http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/>
>>>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>> http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/>
>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com 
>>>> =======================================================
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>>=======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>======================================================= 
>
=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com =======================================================

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110903/b6d41fde/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list