<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
On 09/04/2011 01:45 PM, Gier, Nicholas wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:E56F42817870B1419AD874AF42906A7B02727036@EXVS2.its.uidaho.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="MS Exchange Server version
6.5.7655.1">
<title>RE: [Vision2020] who pays for Megaload cops?</title>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<p><font size="2">Greetings:<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Nick<br>
<br>
Paul states,<br>
<br>
"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."<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Donovan Arnold<br>
<br>
<br>
>>> >
=======================================================<br>
>>><br>
>><br>
<br>
</font>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>