Remember the “Occupy L.A.” caper? Of course you do. That was our own la-la land equivalent of “occupy Wall Street.” Ring a bell now? That was the caper wherein the L.A. “occupiers” took over the city hall lawn (which they eventually destroyed), but were welcomed by local politicos with open arms.
“Protesters were welcomed warmly by city law makers when they launched their demonstration last September as part of a nationwide protest against economic inequality.”
“The [city] council passed a resolution in support of the group’s ‘peaceful and vibrant exercise in First Amendment rights’ and then-Council President Eric Garcetti told protesters: ‘Stay as long as you need, we’re here to support you.'”
So we are reminded by the Los Angeles Times — Kate Linthicum, Taxpayers’ Bill for Occupy L.A. Protest Rises to $4.7 Million, L.A. Times, May 12, 2012, which also brings the dispatch that the increase in cost comes to $2 million over an earlier estimate given by the city only last February.
So we can’t help wondering: where is Garcetti and his compadres now when the time comes to pay the tab for the political “free lunch” they so generously dispensed (out of city funds, natch) to the “occupiers”? As far as we can tell, they are nowhere to be seen, and as sure as God made little green apples, they are not likely to contribute a penny out of their own pockets toward footing the bill for their generosity.
Bottom line: for this, they got money. For paying full indemnity for the demonstrable economic harm they inflict on people whose resources they plunder in connection with city land acquisitions, they don’t got money. After all, as the California Supreme Courtt once put it, if people are paid for all economic losses inflicted on them by eminent domain takings, we’ll just have to declare “an embargo” oon public works. Oh dear.
In the meantime the city of L.A. is facing a $238 million budget deficit and there is a not-insignificant chance that it will eventually go insolvent. Welcome to la-la land.