[Vision2020] who pays for Megaload cops?

Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 4 16:54:05 PDT 2011

Who is paying and who should have to pay are two different things.  If 
Exxon/Mobil is paying as part of a contract they negotiated, or if they 
are paying in order to keep their drivers safe, so much the better.  I 
just don't like this current-object-of-my-ire-pays rule that seems to 
have sprung up here.

If you walk through a dangerous part of town on the way home and you 
have call 911 a few times to get the cops to break up bad situations, I 
don't see how you should expect to be billed for it.  If you decide to 
hire an off-duty cop to walk with you, it doesn't change the fact that 
you shouldn't have to do so.

In effect, it's akin to fining Exxon/Mobil for having a bad reputation 
amongst local Muscovites.  I don't see that as a positive thing.


On 09/04/2011 01:45 PM, Gier, Nicholas wrote:
> Greetings:
> What has been lost in this discussion and rather detrimental to Paul's 
> and Jay's position is that Exxon Mobil paid for police security going 
> up Highway 12 (and is still paying for it as the load sits there being 
> ugly); and, according to our mayor, Exxon-Mobil is willing to pay the 
> Moscow MPD for any extra costs.  I don't know why Nancy would tell me 
> something that is not true, so this ends, for me at least, the 
> discussion about who should pay.
> Nick
> Paul states,
> "As a property tax payer, I'd rather pay for general police coverage 
> that way than to have to have a credit card handy when I dial 911."
> Paul, I think that is an excellent counter argument to a claim that 
> people should be required to personally finance the costs of their 
> legitimate emergencies to the city. But since that claim was never 
> made I am unsure as to why you would make it.
> However, I am sure that many for profit businesses would be pleased to 
> hear that you are willing to pay a share of their costs of doing 
> business by transferring their company responsibilities to 
> publicly funded government agencies they don't pay into. I am not so 
> willing and generous as you are, apparently. I believe that general 
> city services should be used for the general public not to pawn off 
> expenses of private for profit companies to local taxpayers.
> Donovan Arnold
> >>> > =======================================================
> >>>
> >>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110904/9064cf11/attachment.html>

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list