Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
St. Patrick's celebrations
#91
(04-06-2018, 04:40 PM)jeffster Wrote:
(04-06-2018, 04:13 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: This is not an "illegal" party.

Everyone says this, but it means nothing.  There are illegal acts, yes, and those people are punished.  But it is not illegal to congregate on public property, nor is it illegal to invite people onto your own property for a party.  Calling this an "illegal party" is the same as arguing a traffic jam is an illegal party, a group of people, some (probably more) who are breaking the law, all in one place blocking a road.

As for EMS, why do you call out City of Waterloo?  They're not responsible for EMS services, why are you calling them out in this case.  The city and region are hardly distinct in this case.  I think if you lived in the CoW, you wouldn't be saying this.

I'm all for solving the problems related to this event, but this rhetoric is not solving anything.

It's 'illegal' because it's on a public street. It's 'illegal' because there is underage drinking.  It's 'illegal' because there is public intoxication. If I go and walking on a street with a open can of beer, I'll be arrested. That's a fact. So what is going on here is 100% illegal.  This isn't a party on someones property. You and I both know that. To compare this to a traffic jam is beyond ridiculous.

How about trying to have a 'party' on your street, start handing drinks to 18 year olds, get people drunk, and see well that goes for ya.

As for "why do you call out the City of Waterloo"? This is because Waterloo doesn't enforce their own by-laws, and does nothing to contribute to the safety of this party.

The City of Kitchener puts on their own parties, legally, and they HIRE EMS, they HIRE police services, etc, not to mention use their corporate security and by-law to ensure safety of the patrons. These parties brings in money to the city primarily, but also some benefits to the region. But guess what, the region doesn't have to pony up the costs of these parties the city puts on.

If I lived in the CoW I wouldn't care if the city had to pay for it.  Just like I don't care, being a CoK taxpayer, at paying for all these events the city puts  on. Kitchener wants their drunken (within reason) rib and beer fest, their drunken (within reason) Blues Fest, and they have to pay for the added services. If I decide to benefit myself to these 'legal' parties, I can. If it's a rainout disaster, oh well...

All of the things you describe are acts committed by individuals.  They do not make a crowds act's illegal.  You cannot ascribe the crimes of one person to a group of people, no matter how geographically colocated those people are.

What is beyond ridiculous is the disregard of fundamental freedoms we have guaranteed, and the treating of students as less deserving of basic services like EMS.

Then why is it all of a sudden so different when the region pays for instead of the cities.
Reply


#92
(04-06-2018, 05:04 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: All of the things you describe are acts committed by individuals.  They do not make a crowds act's illegal.  You cannot ascribe the crimes of one person to a group of people, no matter how geographically colocated those people are.

What is beyond ridiculous is the disregard of fundamental freedoms we have guaranteed, and the treating of students as less deserving of basic services like EMS.

Then why is it all of a sudden so different when the region pays for instead of the cities.


OK, so we go with that. So then, the City of Waterloo needs to enforce their by-laws, and the police need to enforce the law. If that means arresting or charging every student with a drink in their hand, then do it. By-law would need to charge each and every homeowner for any violation .

As for the 'they do not make a crowds act's illegal', one would have to be incredibly naïve to believe that most weren't breaking the law. Chances are, most, if not everyone, were.

What is ridiculous is are the universities and city of Waterloo not taking ownership in this party. Our fundamental freedoms don't trump our right to basic services like EMS. This is what happens with this party. Nor are these freedoms guaranteed if they're breaking the law, and/or, risking the general public.

If you feel it's OK if someone dies because EMS is tied up with this party then say it. Personally, I'm not OK with that.
Reply
#93
Are you okay if someone dies at the party because RoW refuses to provide emergency services there?
Reply
#94
(04-06-2018, 09:45 PM)jeffster Wrote:
(04-06-2018, 05:04 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: All of the things you describe are acts committed by individuals.  They do not make a crowds act's illegal.  You cannot ascribe the crimes of one person to a group of people, no matter how geographically colocated those people are.

What is beyond ridiculous is the disregard of fundamental freedoms we have guaranteed, and the treating of students as less deserving of basic services like EMS.

Then why is it all of a sudden so different when the region pays for instead of the cities.


OK, so we go with that. So then, the City of Waterloo needs to enforce their by-laws, and the police need to enforce the law. If that means arresting or charging every student with a drink in their hand, then do it. By-law would need to charge each and every homeowner for any violation .

As for the 'they do not make a crowds act's illegal', one would have to be incredibly naïve to believe that most weren't breaking the law. Chances are, most, if not everyone, were.

What is ridiculous is are the universities and city of Waterloo not taking ownership in this party.  Our fundamental freedoms don't trump our right to basic services like EMS.  This is what happens with this party. Nor are these freedoms guaranteed if they're breaking the law, and/or, risking the general public.

If you feel it's OK if someone dies because EMS is tied up with this party then say it. Personally, I'm not OK with that.

One would have to be incredibly naive to not realize that the vast majority of drivers on the road are breaking some law, does that make driving illegal or a group of drivers illegal?

As for CoW and WRPS enforcing the law and bylaws, I would really really like them to do that for drivers.  Frankly I'm sick of my life being routinely put in danger by drivers who break the law and park illegally.  That happens every single day, not confined to one day of the year. 

But I digress, I don't know why you think that everyone was breaking the law, the police were there in force, whether you believe there were technical violations of the law, there was not lawlessness.  

Let me ask you this question, I am perfectly permitted to drink on my porch, I am clearly breaking the law when I am drinking on the sidewalk, somewhere in between the legal line, where is it?  When does it become a crime?  There *is* a technical legal definition, but why are we concerned with it.  There are real problems the law is meant to solve, whether it does or not I'm not sure, but the party was not out of hand, that's *my* main concern.

Even if you look at the actual number of people hospitalized, it's more or less in line with similar gatherings of people (being around 0.2% of the people there).

But in any case, that isn't the thing I find beyond ridiculous.

The idea that we shouldn't provide emergency services to some people, because you disagree with their life choices.

Here's another hypothetical.  Would you also argue EMS shouldn't respond to a planned protest?  The same dangerous situation could arise, the same risk to the rest of the community?  It's also pre-planned, and quite like, there's also a group of people who feel strongly about whether it should happen or not.
Reply
#95
I think we need to get away from the medical ethics aspect of the discussion; there is nothing that can be changed in that respect.

Paramedics/doctors/police/fire have an oathes to help/protect those in need, and to help/protect those in need the most, first. Even if a drunk driver hits a pedestrian and somehow miraculously the driver is most seriously one injured, medical staff have a duty to treat the most injured first even if they are the "guilty" party.

We should be focusing our energies on mitigating the risks and impact of the party on the community. The chaos is a growing a drain on local resources so the only solution is to add additional resources above and beyond the normal budgeted complement for that day of week and time of day (when an ambulance is assigned a high priority call it cannot be reassigned to another call until the other one has been cleared) .

Throwing out some random-and-not-completely-thought-through suggestions:
1) Local post-secondary institutions institute a new fee on all students to cover the cost of hiring additional paramedics, security, police, and sanitation crews - but then of course you accusing all local students when it is only a small proportion that are contributing to the chaos and completely miss the under-aged crowd and the out-of-town students which make up a larger and larger contingent; but maybe then there might be some peer pressure to not attend the party and find another way to celebrate.
2) The region could implement a small alcohol tax to cover the additional costs (maybe only the City of Toronto Act has that power?) - but then of course you are punishing responsible users of alcohol needlessly.
3) LCBO could limit shipments to the K-W area in the weeks beforehand to try and limit supply - but then again you are punishing responsible users of alcohol needlessly.
4) LCBO could limit volume of individual purchases - but again you are punishing responsible users of alcohol needlessly.
5) The universities could schedule more midterms to immediately on or after St Patrick's day so there will be additional consequences individually.
6) If the 911 call was the result of reckless or illegal behaviour allow the region/province the ability to recoup the full cost of an ambulance ride instead of the standard fee ($45) - I wouldn't want this because then you might get people reluctant to call and then it might be too late to help someone, and again this slips in to the medical ethics territory where it is a judgement and very a slippery slope.
7) Emergency curfew - call in the military - probably even more expensive than the amount of resources already being used and but you are punishing the entire community.
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
#96
(04-07-2018, 05:53 AM)jamincan Wrote: Are you okay if someone dies at the party because RoW refuses to provide emergency services there?

Well, here is the problem; at some point, someone IS going to die because the services will be stretched too thin. So my answer is, yes, I'm OK with that. Because if my kid gets run over by an idiot driver, or a friend has a heart attack, or a co-worker gets hurt on the job, I rather have EMS for them rather than some kids who are purposely getting drunk to the point of poisoning.

Remember too, this isn't Oktoberfest or Blues Fest or Rib and Beer show, where ALL servers are trained, and are taking on that responsibility to ensure the patrons aren't drinking too much. On top of that, they hire their own medical staff, "just in case".

Who would you choose? Your child or some random drunk at an illegal street party?

Though as I mentioned before, there are solutions, but no one appears to want them because it costs money.
Reply
#97
(04-07-2018, 04:15 PM)jeffster Wrote:
(04-07-2018, 05:53 AM)jamincan Wrote: Are you okay if someone dies at the party because RoW refuses to provide emergency services there?

Well, here is the problem; at some point, someone IS going to die because the services will be stretched too thin.  So my answer is, yes, I'm OK with that. Because if my kid gets run over by an idiot driver, or a friend has a heart attack, or a co-worker gets hurt on the job, I rather have EMS for them rather than some kids who are purposely getting drunk to the point of poisoning.  

Remember too, this isn't Oktoberfest or Blues Fest or Rib and Beer show, where ALL servers are trained, and are taking on that responsibility to ensure the patrons aren't drinking too much. On top of that, they hire their own medical staff, "just in case".

Who would you choose? Your child or some random drunk at an illegal street party?

Though as I mentioned before, there are solutions, but no one appears to want them because it costs money.

(Edited by moderator)
One human's life is never more important than another human's life. 
We are all equal.
(Edited by moderator)
Reply


#98
Gentlemen, please tone this down. Spirited discussion and disagreement is fine, but insults and personal comments are completely unacceptable.
Reply
#99
(04-06-2018, 09:45 PM)jeffster Wrote: So then, the City of Waterloo needs to enforce their by-laws, and the police need to enforce the law. If that means arresting or charging every student with a drink in their hand, then do it. By-law would need to charge each and every homeowner for any violation .

This is a very "perfect world" solution.

One officer making an arrest may encounter resistance, especially in the middle of a huge crowd, while they are outnumbered would likely not end well.

A heavy handed approach would likely lead to increased tensions and likely a riot.

Coke
Reply
CBC is reporting the official costs of the event as $713,500, broken down as follows:

- $330,000 for policing
- $62,500 for the City of Waterloo
- $120,000 for regional paramedic services
- $191,000 for Wilfrid Laurier University
- $10,000 for the University of Waterloo

Not sure what those University costs would entail.

The CBC report also notes that a task force has been struck to look for ways to reduce the size of the event over the next two years, and to "refocus" it over the next five years (not sure what "refocus" means in this context).

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-...-1.4618050
Reply
University costs are likely security costs, unless there was some damage to property.
Reply
How much does Oktoberfest cost? Does any of the ticket prices go towards covering similiar costs or are they in kind donations by the parties involved?
Reply
(04-06-2018, 05:04 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(04-06-2018, 04:40 PM)jeffster Wrote: It's 'illegal' because it's on a public street. It's 'illegal' because there is underage drinking.  It's 'illegal' because there is public intoxication. If I go and walking on a street with a open can of beer, I'll be arrested. That's a fact. So what is going on here is 100% illegal.  This isn't a party on someones property. You and I both know that. To compare this to a traffic jam is beyond ridiculous.

How about trying to have a 'party' on your street, start handing drinks to 18 year olds, get people drunk, and see well that goes for ya.

As for "why do you call out the City of Waterloo"? This is because Waterloo doesn't enforce their own by-laws, and does nothing to contribute to the safety of this party.

The City of Kitchener puts on their own parties, legally, and they HIRE EMS, they HIRE police services, etc, not to mention use their corporate security and by-law to ensure safety of the patrons. These parties brings in money to the city primarily, but also some benefits to the region. But guess what, the region doesn't have to pony up the costs of these parties the city puts on.

If I lived in the CoW I wouldn't care if the city had to pay for it.  Just like I don't care, being a CoK taxpayer, at paying for all these events the city puts  on. Kitchener wants their drunken (within reason) rib and beer fest, their drunken (within reason) Blues Fest, and they have to pay for the added services. If I decide to benefit myself to these 'legal' parties, I can. If it's a rainout disaster, oh well...

All of the things you describe are acts committed by individuals.  They do not make a crowds act's illegal.  You cannot ascribe the crimes of one person to a group of people, no matter how geographically colocated those people are.

What is beyond ridiculous is the disregard of fundamental freedoms we have guaranteed, and the treating of students as less deserving of basic services like EMS.

Then why is it all of a sudden so different when the region pays for instead of the cities.

What "fundamental freedoms we have guaranteed" are we being denied during the "illegal" March 17th gathering?
Reply


(04-13-2018, 12:59 PM)darts Wrote: How much does Oktoberfest cost? Does any of the ticket prices go towards covering similiar costs or are they in kind donations by the parties involved?

1,700 police hours were used at last years Oktoberfest. If we say $100/hour, that works out to $170,000 ($100/hour might be slightly on the generous side). Of that 1,700 hours, 770 hours were at the fest halls, so that leaves 930 hour x $100 for $93,000 cost to the region over the 9 days. I'd imagine that the $93,000 is covered several times over by the amount of revenue the event brings to the region. I'll throw in $50,000 for gas and wear and tear on the cruisers and the bomb squad, so perhaps $150,000 (rounding up).

Almost a certainty that it doesn't quite cost $100/hour, but I'm thinking 'overtime', 'meal allowances', and 'OMERS' and stuff like that. (Average pay for the WRPS is $115,000 * 1.3 for OMERS and other benefits -- that 30% rate is based on the rate I was given from HR since I work for the government too, (OMERS is between 9.2% and 15.8% depending on your income of that 30%). So if I say $70 * 1.30 + weekend/afternoon/night premiums + meal allowance + holiday pay payout (you get additional payout paid for an overtime) should take it close to $100/hour.)

I'd imagine the costs that the City of Waterloo incurred are some by-law officers, clean-up, and obviously city workers bringing the dump trucks over and any related damage to public property (in reference to the St. Patrick's Day party).

Now whether or not Oktoberfest contributes any additional money, I have no idea.
Reply
(04-15-2018, 12:28 AM)MacBerry Wrote:
(04-06-2018, 05:04 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: All of the things you describe are acts committed by individuals.  They do not make a crowds act's illegal.  You cannot ascribe the crimes of one person to a group of people, no matter how geographically colocated those people are.

What is beyond ridiculous is the disregard of fundamental freedoms we have guaranteed, and the treating of students as less deserving of basic services like EMS.

Then why is it all of a sudden so different when the region pays for instead of the cities.

What "fundamental freedoms we have guaranteed" are we being denied during the "illegal" March 17th gathering?

I've said it before, I'll say it again.  The March 17th gathering is not illegal.  We aren't the type of country which has "illegal" gatherings.  China has illegal gatherings.  North Korea probably has illegal gatherings.  We don't.  Because gathering in a public place (or private place for that matter) is a guaranteed right under the charter.

You can find it in section 2, freedom of assembly.  You can also find it in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 20), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (Article 21) and the American Convention on Human Rights (Article 15).

This right is protected whether you are gathering to protest a war, to protest not going to war, to protest another group who is protesting, or just to hang out with your friends.  All protected.  And frankly, Canada does not have a great track record of protecting this right, even as recently as the G20.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links