• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Occupy Philadelphia costs city $400,000 in police surveillance

toomuchtime_

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
798
Reaction score
169
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The city has spent more than $400,000 in police costs to deal with the Occupy Philadelphia protest on the west side of City Hall, Nutter administration officials estimated Tuesday.
The figure includes $164,000 in police overtime through the first five days of the protest - the bulk of the city's out-of-pocket costs - and an additional $237,000 for the plainclothes and uniformed officers stationed at Dilworth Plaza and other City Hall locations on their regular shifts.
"In one sense the added cost is the overtime number, but there is also a deployment issue - the officers are here instead of other places," said Mayor Nutter's spokesman, Mark McDonald.
pixel.gif





pixel.gif

Now entering its seventh day, the demonstration has drawn several hundred people or more to City Hall during peak periods each day. The number of tents that provide overnight accommodations increased to about 100 from 80 over the weekend.
City budget director Rebecca Rhynhart - now initiating an effort to pare about $47 million from the budget to compensate for three months of weaker-than-expected revenue - said she would ask all city departments to provide reports on what the demonstration is costing them.
The bulk of the expense comes from the Police Department, but McDonald identified several minor items, including daily trash pickups and a hookup to City Hall's electrical system allowing demonstrators to recharge computers, telephones, and other electronic equipment and keep their website updated.
"They will ultimately receive a bill for the electricity they're using . . . and they've agreed to pay it," McDonald said.
So far, the protesters have had to pay only $20 for an open-ended demonstration permit, required when more than 75 people gather at a public place. Some talk of staying indefinitely.

Occupy Philadelphia costs city $400,000 in police surveillance - Philly.com

Links to the costs to other cities

Google

At a cost of $400,000 a week, the cost to the city's residents could quickly run into millions of dollars at a time when the city has already been forced to cut back on some services because of declining revenues. Should these protesters and those in other cities be required to cover the costs to the city, so that its residents, often those most vulnerable and dependent on city services, do not have to face further cutbacks because of Occupy Philadelphia?
 
Last edited:
That's the city's problem. Maybe if they don't want to dish out so much money, they should campaign for economic change instead of towing the status quo.

What part of "right to freedom of assembly" do you not understand? There is no price tag attached to that. People can gather peacefully wherever they want. Screw the permit system. "Protest zones" are becoming common in most major North American cities. It's the government's way of neutering them of effectiveness.

Activism is activism, not "activism in a certain part of the city where no one will see it", and certainly not "this activism is costing the city money, so we should charge them a fee."

Total BS.
 
That's the city's problem. Maybe if they don't want to dish out so much money, they should campaign for economic change instead of towing the status quo.

What part of "right to freedom of assembly" do you not understand? There is no price tag attached to that. People can gather peacefully wherever they want. Screw the permit system. "Protest zones" are becoming common in most major North American cities. It's the government's way of neutering them of effectiveness.

Activism is activism, not "activism in a certain part of the city where no one will see it", and certainly not "this activism is costing the city money, so we should charge them a fee."

Total BS.

To the common hard working tax paying city resident, this should be enough reason NOT to support this fiasco.
 
That's the city's problem. Maybe if they don't want to dish out so much money, they should campaign for economic change instead of towing the status quo.

What part of "right to freedom of assembly" do you not understand? There is no price tag attached to that. People can gather peacefully wherever they want. Screw the permit system. "Protest zones" are becoming common in most major North American cities. It's the government's way of neutering them of effectiveness.

Activism is activism, not "activism in a certain part of the city where no one will see it", and certainly not "this activism is costing the city money, so we should charge them a fee."

Total BS.

Well, your post suggests you are either confused about how the cost to city residents of Occupy Philadelphia will reduce city services or you are altogether indifferent to how the movement will harm them. The city has already has had previously to close some branch libraries and some fire houses because of declining revenues and the question being posed here is not whether they have the right to assemble but whether they will behave as responsible citizens and pay their fair share of the costs they are generating.
 
Well, your post suggests you are either confused about how the cost to city residents of Occupy Philadelphia will reduce city services or you are altogether indifferent to how the movement will harm them. The city has already has had previously to close some branch libraries and some fire houses because of declining revenues and the question being posed here is not whether they have the right to assemble but whether they will behave as responsible citizens and pay their fair share of the costs they are generating.

Maybe the police should just leave them alone, then.
 
Maybe the police should just leave them alone, then.

Seriously, it's on the city and the police to justify the use of force against American citizens. Always.

I'm not convinced the police response is warranted.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the police should just leave them alone, then.

The police have left them alone. They are blocking access to one entrance to City Hall and the police presence is to prevent them from blocking other entrances to City Hall or other city buildings.
 
The point of social activism is to damage the system being challenged. If OWS protests drive up the cost for maintaining the status quo, that's nothing but a victory for them.

A sign posted to a streetlight at the end of my block appeared just today. It said just one thing: "99%." I love it.
 
Seriously, it's on the city and the police to justify the use of force against American citizens. Always.

I'm not convinced the police response is warranted.

The police have used no force here. The question is, how much should the city's needier citizens have to give up in city services to cover the costs Occupy Philadelphia is generating? Close more libraries? Close more fire houses? Shouldn't the protesters pay their fair share of the costs they are generating?
 
The point of social activism is to damage the system being challenged. If OWS protests drive up the cost for maintaining the status quo, that's nothing but a victory for them.

A sign posted to a streetlight at the end of my block appeared just today. It said just one thing: "99%." I love it.

So you think if the city is forced to cut money for education, public health centers, close libraries and fire houses that is a victory?
 
So you think if the city is forced to cut money for education, public health centers, close libraries and fire houses that is a victory?

That's not my problem. The system is broken. Maybe if they are having to divert costs, they should have thought about that before supporting multi trillion dollar bailouts to domestic and foreign corporations, banks, and governments. We could always ask for some of that back, I suppose?
 
That's not my problem. The system is broken. Maybe if they are having to divert costs, they should have thought about that before supporting multi trillion dollar bailouts to domestic and foreign corporations, banks, and governments. We could always ask for some of that back, I suppose?

Maybe the children and poor people of Philadelphia you claim not to care about had nothing to do with the bailouts, etc. Maybe their problem now is not the system but just the protesters who are not paying their fair share of the costs they are generating.
 
So you think if the city is forced to cut money for education, public health centers, close libraries and fire houses that is a victory?

Collateral damage baby! You gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette.

At least that's what the govt tells me every time their activities result in deaths and destruction of property of those who were not involved in the conflict.

Remember that seven story apartment building in Iran that was leveled by a bunker buster at dinnertime because they thought Saddam was eating in a restaurant on the ground floor? I do. I saw the reporter jump when the huge explosion hit. I also recall that the residents in that area had been told to remain indoors to avoid being hit while we precision bombed the AA batteries that were in the streets in the area.
 
Maybe the children and poor people of Philadelphia you claim not to care about had nothing to do with the bailouts, etc. Maybe their problem now is not the system but just the protesters who are not paying their fair share of the costs they are generating.

You don't seem to understand a basic fact here. These people have a right to be protesting under the First Amendment. Not only that, many of the people present are the poor and disenfranchised that you are referring to. Stop invoking their name in order to criticize a movement. If you want to criticize it, then do so directly, instead of couching your attacks in some kind of faux economic concern.

The reason why people are poor is NOT because of protesting and activism. Get a clue please.
 
That's the city's problem. Maybe if they don't want to dish out so much money, they should campaign for economic change instead of towing the status quo.

What part of "right to freedom of assembly" do you not understand? There is no price tag attached to that. People can gather peacefully wherever they want. Screw the permit system. "Protest zones" are becoming common in most major North American cities. It's the government's way of neutering them of effectiveness.

Activism is activism, not "activism in a certain part of the city where no one will see it", and certainly not "this activism is costing the city money, so we should charge them a fee."

Total BS.

Pull the police force. Let the demonstrators block traffic, interfere with commerce, commit petty theft, shoplifting, vandalism. Respond to calls to 911 only. That's what I'd do if I were in charge. Let them hang themselves; then kick ass. Enough, spoiled brats. Go home.
 
Last edited:
That's not my problem. The system is broken. Maybe if they are having to divert costs, they should have thought about that before supporting multi trillion dollar bailouts to domestic and foreign corporations, banks, and governments. We could always ask for some of that back, I suppose?

I doubt Philly had anything to do with multi trillion dollar bailouts to anyone....you have attacked the wrong target.
unlike the federal government ( that OWS won't protest) cities and states have statutory obligations to balance their budgets.... they don't do bailouts, and they don't have trillions.

but never fear, they will have to divert costs now... only you won't appreciate where they will be diverted from.
 
You don't seem to understand a basic fact here. These people have a right to be protesting under the First Amendment. Not only that, many of the people present are the poor and disenfranchised that you are referring to. Stop invoking their name in order to criticize a movement. If you want to criticize it, then do so directly, instead of couching your attacks in some kind of faux economic concern.

The reason why people are poor is NOT because of protesting and activism. Get a clue please.

Some of the people at Occupy Philadelphia are poor, but many clearly are not, and the movement is costing the people of Philadelphia $400,000 a week, $1,250,000 a month in vital city services such as education, health care and public safety because declines in revenues have already forced the city government to eliminate all non essential expenditures.

Certainly Occupy Philadelphia has a right to protest, but as responsible citizens and decent people don't they also have a responsibility to pay their fair share of the costs they are generating? After all, there is a difference between protesting and squatting on city property and there is no Constitutional right to squat on city property or private property, so if the city of Philadelphia is generous enough to allow them to squat in City Hall courtyard, shouldn't an innate sense of decency and responsibility to the community compel them to want to pay their fair share of the costs they are generating?
 
Last edited:
That's not my problem. The system is broken. Maybe if they are having to divert costs, they should have thought about that before supporting multi trillion dollar bailouts to domestic and foreign corporations, banks, and governments. We could always ask for some of that back, I suppose?

I wasn't aware that THE CITY did that.......

:roll:

If you are any representation of the people protesting....... they really are lost.
 
I wasn't aware that THE CITY did that.......

:roll:

If you are any representation of the people protesting....... they really are lost.

you heard her... it's not her problem....

and it's not, it's the taxpayers of Phillys problem
 
you heard her... it's not her problem....

and it's not, it's the taxpayers of Phillys problem

As long as she gets her free college education and debt wiped clean she doesn't care who has to suffer .... amirite?
 
Some of the people at Occupy Philadelphia are poor, but many clearly are not, and the movement is costing the people of Philadelphia $400,000 a week, $1,250,000 a month in vital city services such as education, health care and public safety because declines in revenues have already forced the city government to eliminate all non essential expenditures.

Certainly Occupy Philadelphia has a right to protest, but as responsible citizens and decent people don't they also have a responsibility to pay their fair share of the costs they are generating? After all, there is a difference between protesting and squatting on city property and there is no Constitutional right to squat on city property or private property, so if the city of Philadelphia is generous enough to allow them to squat in City Hall courtyard, shouldn't an innate sense of decency and responsibility to the community compel them to want to pay their fair share of the costs they are generating?

Consider it an investment.

An investment in preventing another $700 billion dollar bailout.

An investment in the elimination of "too big to fail" and "give me what I want or I'll take my ball and go to the Caimans."

An investment in a less inherently corrupt govt.
 
Consider it an investment.

An investment in preventing another $700 billion dollar bailout.

An investment in the elimination of "too big to fail" and "give me what I want or I'll take my ball and go to the Caimans."

An investment in a less inherently corrupt govt.
Very few of the folks at "Occupy Anywhere" care about fiscal responsibility or a more transparent government, if some of that 700 billion had ended up in their pocket they wouldn't give a ****.
 
Consider it an investment.

An investment in preventing another $700 billion dollar bailout.

An investment in the elimination of "too big to fail" and "give me what I want or I'll take my ball and go to the Caimans."

An investment in a less inherently corrupt govt.

Try to keep up.

The Treasury Department announced Wednesday that the money it gave to banks during the financial crisis has been paid back, and then some.

The bank bailout -- part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program -- is now $6 billion in the black, a profit that might ultimately rise to $20 billion, according to the Treasury.
Bank bailout turns a profit - Mar. 30, 2011
 
Consider it an investment.

An investment in preventing another $700 billion dollar bailout.

An investment in the elimination of "too big to fail" and "give me what I want or I'll take my ball and go to the Caimans."

An investment in a less inherently corrupt govt.

well, that would be a poor investment... 'the city of Philadelphia is rather powerless to do anything about the items you listed.


however, you can certainly count on it being an investment into cutting city services.
 
Back
Top Bottom