The city will foot the bill? What the................
By hdjohnson
@hdjohnson (2981)
United States
July 15, 2009 6:03pm CST
I read this article regarding the city of Los Angeles paying for the bill of the King of Pop, Michael Jackson's memorial ceremony. Believe, I enjoyed his music like the next person. I simply don't believe a city should be responsible for paying for him being buried. Since his death, his sales have already sky rocketed. He was truly wealthy, and his children shouldn't have to lift a finger in their life because of the legacy he left them. Despite all of the bad blood and rumors that the Media has been attempting to bring to light regarding the way he lived.
I say, PLEASE, PLEASE let leave his name alone, and let's continue to remember all the good he did and forget/forgive any bad he may have done. But I also, say he should have been responsible enough to pay for his own burial/memorial. That's part of the reason why he prepared a will right. To ensure his family (his children) would be properly taken care of?
What you say, should LA pay for his memorial or should we the taxpayers?
2 people like this
3 responses
@danrunsfast614 (1396)
• United States
16 Jul 09
California is in such debt, and going to be forced to cut many programs. I am not from Los Angelos, but if I were, I know I would be furious over the city(and in that, me as a taxpayer) being forced to foot the bill. Yes, he was a star, and yeah, maybe he was important, but his memorial is not for me to pay for.
2 people like this
@AmbiePam (92719)
• United States
18 Jul 09
I was annoyed at this news. I know his estate can foot the bill with hardly a dent in it. There will never be a reason for tax payers money to go towards anyone's memorial or the security that went with it. And with California's money problems, puh-lease! I don't even think Michael Jackson would want that. No matter one's opinion, he seemed to delight in doing for others, and proving he was not like other spoiled entertainers.
1 person likes this
@hdjohnson (2981)
• United States
18 Jul 09
I can't do anything else but agree with you. Especially your last statement. MJ was in no way stingy and he loved helping people.
@pixelartgirl (20)
• United States
16 Jul 09
The thing is that he is not buried yet, they put his body in a crypt that a family friend let them use until they decide where to properly bury him. As for the memorial, it was very sad, very touching, I saw it on TV and I cried. I feel for the family. Now when it comes down to paying the bill, I will agree with you that the city should not have to pay for him being buried. Now, if it is paid another way then yes, the taxpayers may be the ones having to foot the bill as well. I don't like the idea of the city paying it but if it keeps the taxpayers from paying more then yes, they should foot the bill. Then again, why are they being made to pay for it, why can't the family help out?
Michael was a great entertainer, and whatever life he had, so be it. He is gone and I think he should be let to rest...unfortunatly the media has no soul.
1 person likes this
@hdjohnson (2981)
• United States
16 Jul 09
I agree with you concerning the Media and the soul part. That same article stated that LA was $530 million dollars behind already on meeting their present budget. And Jackson's memorial cost a easy $1.4-$1.6 million. I just don't get it. I do believe that it is a tragic event that occurred for sure. His family is all broken up with some of them trying to accuse the doctors that cared for him? MJ was a very smart man, and if for a second he felt he wasn't in good hands with the people around him all of the time, then he would have simply left him alone. The family is not hurting in the financial arena, so I believe they should have paid the extravagant affair.
