[Vision2020] who pays for Megaload cops?

[Donovan Arnold]

I don't think people are protesting the company, just their destructive behavior as is evidenced by the protesting not occurring at any of the ExxonMobil gas stations or their other products elsewhere in the community. The only rules that have changed are the ones that ExxonMobil made for themselves and nobody else to be able to ship products at a weight and size deemed unsafe. Honestly, why is it safe for ExxonMobil to move this size cargo and not Walmart, Target, and other business passing through? It would save them money too. What is different for them?
 
Donovan Arnold

From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
To: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
Cc: "Gier, Nicholas" <NGIER at uidaho.edu>; Moscow Vision 2020 <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Monday, September 5, 2011 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] who pays for Megaload cops?



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/20110905/40a91e45/attachment.html>