<!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>
Hey, they're not my favorite company, either. However, the rules
don't change based on how much we like them.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
On 09/04/2011 10:38 PM, Donovan Arnold wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:1315201086.61851.YahooMailNeo@web38104.mail.mud.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255); font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif;
font-size: 12pt;">
<div style="right: auto;"><span style="right: auto;">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 <span
style="right: auto;" id="misspell-0">every</span>
year from cheating and <span style="right: auto;"
id="misspell-1"><span style="right: auto;">exploiting</span></span>
people and the environment. We certainly do not treat all
the other companies that roll large numbers of <span
style="right: auto;" id="misspell-0"><span style="right:
auto;" id="misspell-0" class="mark">megaloads</span></span>
through our <span style="right: auto;" id="misspell-1"><span
style="right: auto;" id="misspell-1"><span>pristine</span></span></span>
environment the same way do we? <var id="yui-ie-cursor"></var></span></div>
<div style="right: auto;"><span style="right: auto;"></span> </div>
<div style="right: auto;"><span style="right: auto;">Donovan
Arnold</span></div>
<div style="right: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif;
font-size: 12pt;">
<div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif;
font-size: 12pt;"><font face="Arial" size="2">
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> Paul
Rumelhart <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"><godshatter@yahoo.com></a><br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> "Gier,
Nicholas" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NGIER@uidaho.edu"><NGIER@uidaho.edu></a><br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b> Donovan
Arnold <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com"><donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com></a>; Moscow Vision
2020 <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><Vision2020@moscow.com></a><br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b>
Sunday, September 4, 2011 5:54 PM<br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b>
Re: [Vision2020] who pays for <span id="misspell-4"><span
id="misspell-4"><span id="misspell-4" class="mark">Megaload</span></span></span>
cops?<br>
</font><br>
<div style="right: auto;" id="yiv1314682957"><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 <span id="misspell-5"><span
id="misspell-5"><span id="misspell-5" class="mark">Muscovites</span></span></span>.
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 style="right: auto;" type="cite">
<div style="right: auto;"><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 <span
id="misspell-7"><span id="misspell-7"><span
id="misspell-7" class="mark">MPD</span></span></span>
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></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>