[Vision2020] who pays for Megaload cops?

[Paul Rumelhart]

Hey, they're not my favorite company, either.  However, the rules don't 
change based on how much we like them.

Paul

On 09/04/2011 10:38 PM, Donovan Arnold wrote:
> Yeah, poor Exxon Mobile. They seem to always be getting the short end 
> of the deal because nobody likes them. All they have to comfort and 
> console them is the 100s of billions they make every year from 
> cheating and exploiting people and the environment. We certainly do 
> not treat all the other companies that roll large numbers of megaloads 
> through our pristine environment the same way do we?
> Donovan Arnold
>
> *From:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> *To:* "Gier, Nicholas" <NGIER at uidaho.edu>
> *Cc:* Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>; Moscow Vision 
> 2020 <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 4, 2011 5:54 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] who pays for Megaload cops?
>
>
> 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.
>
> Paul
>
> 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/20110905/3896609f/attachment-0001.html>