Boonstock forging ahead

User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 63434
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Boonstock forging ahead

Post by Fancy »

Corneliousrooster wrote:Does anyone have a link to the expenses incurred by police for the Center of Gravity Festival in Kelowna? ..

Don't have a link but on the radio this morning the figure I believe was $100,000
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
Anonymous123
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4043
Joined: Feb 8th, 2013, 4:02 pm

Re: Boonstock forging ahead

Post by Anonymous123 »

twobits wrote:Wonder if the Canucks got a bill for policing after losing to Boston in game 7? After all, somebody didn't plan ahead adequately and security shortfalls were identified that required members to fill in the gaps


So you are saying that the performers at Boonstock should be picking up the policing costs because they " didn't plan ahead adequately "?
We See
We Judge
We Get Muzzled
twobits
Guru
Posts: 7963
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am

Re: Boonstock forging ahead

Post by twobits »

I said "Canucks", not the Canuck's players. The players are the employed entertainers for the Canucks organization. Same as the bands were the hired entertainers for the Boonstock organization. Pretty simple really.
So do you have an answer for my original question or do you still want to play a silly semantics game?
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
User avatar
Anonymous123
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4043
Joined: Feb 8th, 2013, 4:02 pm

Re: Boonstock forging ahead

Post by Anonymous123 »

twobits wrote:I said "Canucks", not the Canuck's players. The players are the employed entertainers for the Canucks organization. Same as the bands were the hired entertainers for the Boonstock organization. Pretty simple really.
So do you have an answer for my original question or do you still want to play a silly semantics game?


I won't argue with you.
We See
We Judge
We Get Muzzled
mrmagoo
Fledgling
Posts: 235
Joined: Jul 26th, 2014, 9:35 am

Re: Boonstock forging ahead

Post by mrmagoo »

The Canucks games are held in a stadium which is set up and authorized per the City bylaws. The Canucks are not responsible for the riots which were not part of their sanctioned event which they properly organized and security and safety within the event grounds was properly managed and paid for by the event organizers.

The City, in permitting the event, needed to ensure that what happened on the streets was properly planned for and regulated: it did not. Public disturbances are up to the public especially when the City puts on the "City of Vancouver Live Site for the Stanley Cup" and projects images onto screens viewable from the street and invite people down to congregate knowing that people will also be drinking and many will be young. That was a recipe for disaster and just plain dumb imo. It is the City who holds responsibility for what happened next.

In Boonstock's case there was no external riot. There was poor planning, a lack of security and no payment for the RCMP resources required at the event as is required for every major outdoor event put on in any municipality in BC. They need to pay up.
Gixxer
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4852
Joined: Jul 26th, 2007, 8:24 am

Re: Boonstock forging ahead

Post by Gixxer »

Are the tax payers paying for this as well?

http://www.castanet.net/news/BC/127460/ ... in-Burnaby
mrmagoo
Fledgling
Posts: 235
Joined: Jul 26th, 2014, 9:35 am

Re: Boonstock forging ahead

Post by mrmagoo »

Yes- this is what we pay taxes for - to enforce laws passed by elected officials. This is a majority decision and if the majority disagrees likely the laws will be changed. Public protests serve a valuable purpose. They may not reflect the will of the majority.
User avatar
Drip_Torch
Guru
Posts: 5370
Joined: Aug 16th, 2012, 10:56 am

Re: Boonstock forging ahead

Post by Drip_Torch »

Wonder if the Canucks got a bill for policing after losing to Boston in game 7? After all, somebody didn't plan ahead adequately and security shortfalls were identified that required members to fill in the gaps


The complete answer to that question is - No. Not only did they not get a bill for policing costs, they weren't involved in planning the policing of the event, or the "live site" either.

FYI... it looks like this:

Round 4 - Games 1-6

VPD Policing Costs $530,343, City of Vancouver Policing Costs, $83,153 = Total Policing Cost of $613,496

Round 4 - Game 7

VPD Policing Costs $444,943, City of Vancouver Policing Costs, $20,456 = Total Policing Cost of $465,399

The VPD cost consist of overtime costs associated to policing the Stanley cup playoffs, with the exception of Round 4 - Game 7, which has all costs associated to the operational plan, overtime associated with additional internal and external resources deployed, and damaged police equipment.

The City of Vancouver Policing Costs, consist of police resources associated with the initial deployment to the "Live Site" as indicated in the Operational Plans.

It's interesting to note: Game 7 "Live Site" deployment totaled $20,456, "as indicated in the operational plans" - to police what would eventually become approximately 150,000 spectators.

In the planning meetings leading up to the games, "it was decided that Delta, New Westminster, West Vancouver and the RCMP would send resources to Vancouver to assist the VPD if needed. (snip) The RCMP agreed to send officers as part of their Tactical Troop to Vancouver. It was later determined that these Resources would be funded by the RCMP, not the VPD."

On June 3, VPD, Delta Police and Abbotsford Police sent a joint letter to the Solicitor General requesting financial assistance from the Province to assist with the "extraordinary policing costs associated with the regional event of this size". June 10, the Solicitor General denied the request, stating: "the government would not provide funding in excess of the funding it already provides annually to all cities in BC, from traffic fine revenue intended to defray policing costs."

Apparently, VPD can police the Stanley cup final game, and a full fledged riot in downtown Vancouver, with a crowd of 150,000 people, for less than twice the price of a three day music festival on the outskirts of Penticton with 8000 participants. Weird eh?

In Penticton, as we all know, there were 38 arrests, although I don't think we know how many of those arrests resulted in a charge recommendation forwarded to the crown, or how many of those files were charge approved by the crown.

As of October 23, 2014, 366 persons have had files forwarded to the crown for charge assessment from the eight different police agencies that make up the "integrated riot investigation team". Of the 1263 charges recommended by police to the crown, 887 criminal charges have been approved by the branch, against 300 accused individuals.

Of course, we all know that in matters of criminal justice, the crown is worn (and funded) by the Provincial Government.

Clearly, in my mind, if we are going to diversify our economy through the facilitation of special events, we're going to need to spend a little more time considering the facts. (the real facts, not the ones prefaced by "I hate boonstock" - because really, there is more at stake here, than just boonstock.)
Last edited by Drip_Torch on Nov 27th, 2014, 12:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Drip Torch - an upright and steadfast keeper of the flame, but when tilted sideways the contents spill and then our destiny is in the wind...
mrmagoo
Fledgling
Posts: 235
Joined: Jul 26th, 2014, 9:35 am

Re: Boonstock forging ahead

Post by mrmagoo »

"Apparently, VPD can police the Stanley cup final game, and a full fledged riot in downtown Vancouver, with a crowd of 150,000 people, for less than twice the price of a three day music festival on the outskirts of Penticton with 8000 participants. Weird eh?"

Yes, really weird.

I think you are missing some key facts and have not demonstrated an ability to read reports or analyze information accurately.

How are policing costs of $465,000 which do not include the costs for the 120 man RCMP tactical unit that was brought in, add up to less than twice the price of Boonstock?

Then there is the fact that these VPD costs for the night of the riot did not include regular police wages for regularly scheduled officers in the Operational Plan for the event. The $465,000 was only for additional overtime and damage to police equipment for the Vancouver Police.

In the end, 928 officers in total were deployed to the riot (page 79 of the review report). We don't have a total cost for policing because we are missing RCMP costs as mentioned, and costs of all the officers brought in from nearby municipalities such as Surrey and Richmond (see page 68 of the review report).

What is clear is that in Vancouver the 50 cops in the live site area, 30 in the stadium, and about 60 on Granville Mall, 30 on Robson and 20 motorcycle cops running traffic, 20 cycling cops as spot support and 40 cops on stand-by at Canada Place in case the crowds moved north (which they eventually did) were woefully inadequate to deal with this event.

Even when the RCMP 120-man tactical unit was brought it they were inadequate. The under-policing led to lack of adequate crowd control which led to the riot which cost over 2 million in follow up costs to the province alone in criminal investigations - not counting the private damage or the $300,000 report prepared about the matter.

Was the Stanley Cup a money maker for many in Vancouver? - yes. After accounting for the riot costs, which imo was a preventable event, the balance shifts somewhat and as a taxpayer I'm not happy that it was not prevented given that there was a comprehensive report and recommendations done in this in 1994 which do not appear to have been followed.

Back to Boonstock - it is not a question of hating Boonstock - it is a question of who should bear the costs and whether the risks creating more costs were well managed. IMO they were not and Boonstock needs to pay the policing costs like any other outdoor event organizer.

Boonstock would not be responsible for paying the costs for a downtown riot on the long weekend even though their event might have brought more rowdies to town. It is up to the City to manage public space through increased police presence and other measures that were put into effect after the peach fest riots.
sale4u
Fledgling
Posts: 129
Joined: Jun 17th, 2010, 9:57 am

Re: Boonstock forging ahead

Post by sale4u »

Hmmmmm.... I'm tossed. So the problem with Boonstock, is, it should have come down to the Government to cover the costs ? Yes? No? The body (Government) was PIB? However, we have the issue of Locatee Land? But, correct me if I'm wrong, Locatee Land is ultimately still PIB land? But as well as (I) understand it, Locatee Land is Family Owned so they don't need to adhere to Band Laws? I'm really, really trying to understand how this works?? My Bottom line is that I think Boonstock was an amazing opportunty for this City (Town) , Band, to make ourselves (Valley Dwellers that love ...this valley) relevant in the "great Concerts -Events To Be At) But at the end of the day, who is to blame? (So not talking about the less than progressive City Council of Days Gone By)........but perhaps the stupid liquor law oversee'ers and their Minions?? Bottom line, are we going to move forward? And not say, let our city council say this is a bad thing ... But make them say, "How can we make this work...with our concerns"... ?????
User avatar
Drip_Torch
Guru
Posts: 5370
Joined: Aug 16th, 2012, 10:56 am

Re: Boonstock forging ahead

Post by Drip_Torch »

Yes, what are the facts, the real facts? I think you are missing some key ones. For starters, how are policing costs of $465,000 which does not include the costs for the 120 man RCMP tactical unit that was brought in, add up to less than twice the price of Boonstock?


For starters... I underlined the part about the RCMP tactical troop of 97 members, mainly from Vancouver Island detachments, coming out the RCMP budget and I see no mention of the RCMP (municipal contract members) being separated out of the external resources in the VPD policing costs. I think it's plainly obvious that policing and investigation of the Stanley cup riot cost considerably more than the "total policing costs" that the city was responsible for. You didn't mention the 7 million in wages paid out so far, by IRIT, or even touch on the prosecution and court costs.

I guess I'll just come right out and ask the question I was begging towards - How do you reconcile, what you now know about special events policing, with a number of bald assertions you put forward on this thread?

Oh good grief. Of course the costs are downloaded onto a private event organizer. They are creating the higher risk and profiting from it personally.


Taxpayers pay taxes. The taxes go to support the regular course of RCMP business. When large events are held by private parties the organizers are required to pay the extra costs from the profits because taxpayers shouldn't be expected to do so because it increases private profits at the expense of everyone who pays taxes


That was a recipe for disaster and just plain dumb imo. It is the City who holds responsibility for what happened next.


You've got to admit, it really doesn't appear to work like that does it?

The other really important point to spend a moment disentangling is found here:

The under-policing led to lack of adequate crowd control which led to the riot


I suppose, if the status quo is working for you, the inanely bureaucratic conclusion you've arrived at might suffice, but Penticton just had an election, and I think it's pretty safe to say the status quo isn't what most people were after. My read on the election results suggests, we're looking to foster, not suppress, special events, such as this. (not just this)

To arrive at your conclusion, I would need to overlook page 6 of the executive summary:

Few credible analysts have asserted, even in hindsight, that more officers... would have prevented a riot given the massive size of the crowd.


And, page 99, the conclusion:

Riots in relation to major events, sporting and otherwise, have occurred with disturbing regularity in Western democracies and also in less free societies where the response from government can be brutal. While some riots may be attributable at least partly to an inadequate police response, in others the police have been exceptionally well‐prepared and resourced, and/or willing to use high levels of force, yet the riots still occurred. In other words, in general riots cannot be attributed solely to a lack of police resources or skill; there is no amount of police resources that can prevent riots in huge crowds when the right dynamics are present, (e.g., when there are disproportionate numbers of angry young men, intoxication, a sense of anonymity). The solutions to preventing riots are much more complex than policing alone because the factors that can lead to a riot are so complex themselves.

The main finding of this review is that a convergence of factors that contributed to the disorder that occurred on June 15. None, on its own, directly caused the riot to occur. In short, a riot occurred because hundreds of instigators, many of whom were young intoxicated males, decided to riot. Another group joined in while the majority of people acted as an enthusiastic audience who encouraged and unwittingly aided the rioters by insulating them from the police by refusing to leave the area. These circumstances were exacerbated by the phenomenon of thousands of attendees using camera phones to record what many seemed to view as “entertainment.”


I'd also need to overlook a couple of miles... You see, in my experience when Elizabeth's intentions get read out to a crowd, it really doesn't have the effect that the legislative branch intended. People are meant to hear, "it's time to go home now", but instead they actually hear,"this isn't going to be an everyday kind of thing."

It's all about crowd psychology and while I'm certainly no expert, in my day, it was defuse, divide, disperse, and the fewer that notice it's happening, the better.

That, in my opinion, is where the boonstock type festival model has it right, with several components built right into the production. ... but I guess that would be the topic for another day, cause as far as I can tell, they haven't made any announcements to suggest they are going to try and make another go of it.

(Hmm... While I'm not sure if your reply below acknores, or ignowledges my point, I am sure that if you could package that voodoo craft I'd be willing to sell it for you at the next UBCM convention for 15 percent of the profit.)
Last edited by Drip_Torch on Dec 4th, 2014, 12:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Drip Torch - an upright and steadfast keeper of the flame, but when tilted sideways the contents spill and then our destiny is in the wind...
mrmagoo
Fledgling
Posts: 235
Joined: Jul 26th, 2014, 9:35 am

Re: Boonstock forging ahead

Post by mrmagoo »

Bottom line for me is that festivals and events should be welcomed provided proper safety precautions are followed and the RCMP costs are covered like they would be for any special outdoor event.

It is unreasonable to expect taxpayers to pay these costs. Boonstock agreed in advance to pay the costs, was told they needed to pay the $200,000 deposit, told the public they paid it, and it turned out that was an outright lie.

As far as the Vancouver riots go, the policing costs were well in excess of the number you are quoting from the report as that number did not include the RCMP costs, the regular costs of VPD who were already scheduled to cover the event in the operations plan, or the external police that were called in from neighbouring municipalities.

Your point was that VPD could "police the riot and 150,000 fans" for twice the price of the Boonstock policing of 8000 attendees. That is simply untrue and not a valid comparison without a) accurate numbers and, b) proper attention to the reasons the costs increased including inadequate security, RCMP needed to be brought in at overtime rates from all over BC, and the fact that it was a three-day high-risk event, not one evening.

As far as why should Boonstock pay special event policing costs for policing within their event? Because this is fair and reasonable. Read the report and the second report entitled "The Night the City became a Stadium". The live coverage that contributed to the Vancouver riot was a deemed a "civic event" to be covered by the City's policing budget. The playoff organizers and Rogers Arena were required to pay for policing with costs estimated in advance for their event, and for security.

Boonstock was not deemed a "civic event" by anyone, it was a private event held on private lands for profit, and the RCMP made it clear well in advance that Boonstock needed to pay the costs, which it agreed to do.

The two events are fundamentally different imo. What is similar are all outdoor music events. Events like Pemberton and the Kelowna music event did pay policing costs.
Gixxer
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4852
Joined: Jul 26th, 2007, 8:24 am

Re: Boonstock forging ahead

Post by Gixxer »

Seems like boonstock isn't the only one having problems with the RCMP over charging. http://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton/ ... RCMP-costs
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 63434
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Boonstock forging ahead

Post by Fancy »

not so much overcharging but being discussed here:

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=60025
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
CTF
Fledgling
Posts: 172
Joined: Sep 21st, 2012, 11:58 am

Re: Boonstock forging ahead

Post by CTF »

Seems unfortunate that Penticton taxpayers cannot get a clear answer if this RCMP bill is being paid or not, and if so by whom

Return to “North Okanagan”