Gothamist: NYPD Protects NY Times Building From Climbers

jaycjay

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:51:10 -0500

"Why are taxpayers footing the bill to "protect" a building owned by a private company? Why doesn't the private company hire its own security people to "protect" its own building?" Yeah, and they should hire their own firefighters, too, so taxpayers don't have to foot the bill for protecting private buildings!!1! Obviously the police are not there protecting the building, which wouldn't be harmed by someone climbing it... but what if they were? That's what the police are supposed to do. That's what part of the taxes paid by private companies, as well as private citizens, are meant to provide: police protection of our property and welfare. Should we all be required to hire private security and bodyguards? Actually that suggestion was made once by a cop who responded to a call about an assault at a bar I worked out. When told that in the 15 minutes it took them to arrive the perpetrator had left, he said "you should hire your own security." Never thought I'd see public support for that idea, but leave it to Gothamist commenters.

sonyactivision

Sat, 07 Jun 2008 18:43:58 -0500

There should be a Critical Mass style 'Climb Up The Times' with hundreds of ant-like humanoids scaling that tower all at once. A few will naturally plunge to their deaths, but all in all, I would predict a very pleasant and successful outing.

thenextstopwillbe

Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:43:14 -0500

dave, i realize the internet is no place for compliments but i just have to say that your writing consistently impresses me. "After two incidents of X-treme attention whoring" kudos!

Spiritof76

Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:31:20 -0500

How many cops does it take to cordon off a building and what would they have been doing otherwise? Would they have been at home and unpaid? I doubt it. What would the helicopter pilot have been doing? What did they need helicopters for anyway? Were they going to use a sniper to take out the climbers? Could they have gotten close to the building without blowing the climber to his death? Were they afraid that the climber might have some amazing escape route halfway up so they'd never catch him on the roof? They burned at most, what, 100 gallons of fuel assuming they used two helicopters. Unless they don't know what they're doing, no way that fuel should cost more than $1000, not hundreds of thousands.

Hawk

Sat, 07 Jun 2008 11:52:20 -0500

Why are taxpayers footing the bill to "protect" a building owned by a private company? Why doesn't the private company hire its own security people to "protect" its own building? Am I missing something?

babyhitler

Sat, 07 Jun 2008 11:41:52 -0500

didn't the have to pay cops to cordone off the buildings and control the large gathering crowds as well as nypd helicopters?

Spiritof76

Sat, 07 Jun 2008 11:26:02 -0500

Wait, NYPD spent several hundred thousand dollars to collar Alain Robert? I know city agencies are inefficient, but just how much does it cost to have a few cops standing around the base of the tower and a few more at the top to arrest him? Did they call in some off-duty cops for overtime, or are they including costs of cops that would have been paid anyway? Heck, just break out the tranquilizer darts and a big net to catch him. The Times is missing a huge opportunity here. Don't they have any idea how much people pay to use rock-climbing walls? They should just charge $200 or so for each would-be climber, advertise it as the world's largest climbing wall and just rake in the bucks. Newspapers are dying anyway and they need the revenue.

virgil

Sat, 07 Jun 2008 11:25:27 -0500

Clarke really said he wasn't aware of Robert's climb? Hard to believe, but quite the coincidence, if true.

matty

Sat, 07 Jun 2008 11:24:21 -0500

They should grease the polls!

moocowtoo

Sat, 07 Jun 2008 10:56:19 -0500

He rated it a .5 out of 10 in the nypost article. heh.