Hey Guest,
Welcome, Join our awesome community where you can discuss on various topics
or Create an Account


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. Click here to get started.

Dear WRConnected Users: WOW! Our fourth "birthday"! We've grown so much over the past four years, and much of that is because of you, the amazing WRConnected Users. But like any other website, there are costs associated with running it. As some of you may already know, we accept donations. Some of you have made donations (thank you!). This helps cover some of the background costs associated with running this site. If every user were to donate $1 we would more than cover our yearly expenses. If WRConnected is useful to you, take a minute and help keep it online for another year. Any donation is helpful. Thank you.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
St. Patrick's celebrations
(04-15-2018, 01:01 AM)jeffster Wrote:
(04-13-2018, 11:59 AM)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.

Now whether or not Oktoberfest contributes any additional money, I have no idea.

Fest halls and events Pay for the police officers. It is called a paid duty.  You can't compare Octoberfest to and ileagl gathering.
Reply
(04-15-2018, 07:17 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote:
(04-15-2018, 01:01 AM)jeffster Wrote: 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.

Now whether or not Oktoberfest contributes any additional money, I have no idea.

Fest halls and events Pay for the police officers. It is called a paid duty.  You can't compare Octoberfest to and ileagl gathering.

It is not an illegal gathering.  You can continue to repeat a falsehood, but I will continue to call it out for being a falsehood.

As for events paying police, they pay for police on duty at the events, not the additional overtime police officers that called in for the rest of the city.
Reply
(04-15-2018, 10:09 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(04-15-2018, 07:17 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote: Fest halls and events Pay for the police officers. It is called a paid duty.  You can't compare Octoberfest to and ileagl gathering.

It is not an illegal gathering.  You can continue to repeat a falsehood, but I will continue to call it out for being a falsehood.

As for events paying police, they pay for police on duty at the events, not the additional overtime police officers that called in for the rest of the city.

I believe the official line is that it is not a sustainable event.
Reply
How is it not illegal?

The criminal code of Canada defines unlawful assembly as:
63. (1) An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they
(a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or
(b) will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.

Lawful assembly becoming unlawful
(2) Persons who are lawfully assembled may become an unlawful assembly if they conduct themselves with a common purpose in a manner that would have made the assembly unlawful if they had assembled in that manner for that purpose.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 64.


This event even meets the definition of riot (12 or more persons):
64. A riot is an unlawful assembly that has begun to disturb the peace tumultuously.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 65.
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
(04-15-2018, 10:33 AM)Pheidippides Wrote: How is it not illegal?

The criminal code of Canada defines unlawful assembly as:
63. (1) An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they
(a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or
(b) will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.

Lawful assembly becoming unlawful
(2) Persons who are lawfully assembled may become an unlawful assembly if they conduct themselves with a common purpose in a manner that would have made the assembly unlawful if they had assembled in that manner for that purpose.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 64.


This event even meets the definition of riot (12 or more persons):
64. A riot is an unlawful assembly that has begun to disturb the peace tumultuously.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 65.

How?

This event fails the following parts parts:

a)  Common intent.
b)  Disturbing the peace.

There was no rioting, no major fighting, no broad disorderly conduct.

There were individuals who engaged in illegal acts for which they were ticketed by police present.  That was not the common intent of the group.

If this was an illegal gathering the police would have shut it down.  They have publicly stated they want any excuse to do so.

Can we stop making up law now?
Reply
(04-15-2018, 12:12 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(04-15-2018, 10:33 AM)Pheidippides Wrote: How is it not illegal?

The criminal code of Canada defines unlawful assembly as:
63. (1) An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they
(a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or
(b) will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.

Lawful assembly becoming unlawful
(2) Persons who are lawfully assembled may become an unlawful assembly if they conduct themselves with a common purpose in a manner that would have made the assembly unlawful if they had assembled in that manner for that purpose.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 64.


This event even meets the definition of riot (12 or more persons):
64. A riot is an unlawful assembly that has begun to disturb the peace tumultuously.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 65.

How?

This event fails the following parts parts:

a)  Common intent.
b)  Disturbing the peace.

There was no rioting, no major fighting, no broad disorderly conduct.

There were individuals who engaged in illegal acts for which they were ticketed by police present.  That was not the common intent of the group.

If this was an illegal gathering the police would have shut it down.  They have publicly stated they want any excuse to do so.

Can we stop making up law now?

What planet are you on? 

The law is the legal test not your belief that it is not illegal. 

A pig can not fly even if you said it could. 

Can you stop ignoring the law now?
Reply
(04-15-2018, 02:25 PM)MacBerry Wrote:
(04-15-2018, 12:12 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: How?

This event fails the following parts parts:

a)  Common intent.
b)  Disturbing the peace.

There was no rioting, no major fighting, no broad disorderly conduct.

There were individuals who engaged in illegal acts for which they were ticketed by police present.  That was not the common intent of the group.

If this was an illegal gathering the police would have shut it down.  They have publicly stated they want any excuse to do so.

Can we stop making up law now?

What planet are you on? 

The law is the legal test not your belief that it is not illegal. 

A pig can not fly even if you said it could. 

Can you stop ignoring the law now?

What are you even talking about?

Please explain to me how a group of students mulling about peacefully is a riot.

I'm not making this up. Those claiming there was a riot are the ones making things up.

You cannot call peaceful assembly an illegal riot just to justify taking away peoples rights.

I'm so sick and tired of this discussion because it is nothing more than prejudice against students.
Reply
(04-15-2018, 02:43 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: You cannot call peaceful assembly an illegal riot just to justify taking away peoples rights.

I'm so sick and tired of this discussion because it is nothing more than prejudice against students.

It's not prejudice against students, at all.

However, the activities of the students: 1) Public intoxication, 2) Blocking a roadway, 3) Underage drinking, are all illegal.

You could also add that there is a capacity by-law being broken too.

And as I had mentioned before, these unsanctioned event don't contribute to the enjoyment of the region (therefore, the students are prejudiced against all non-students) nor do they contribute financially towards the costs related to the event, which we now have the numbers for. $713,000 to benefit a very small and selfish, ignorant, portion of our population, for the sole purpose of getting drunk. This greatly exceeds the costs for the 9 day Oktoberfest that we have, which, for all intents and purposes, pays for itself.

If those students want to contribute $40 each to cover our costs, then fine....
Reply
(04-15-2018, 07:17 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote:
(04-15-2018, 01:01 AM)jeffster Wrote: 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.

Now whether or not Oktoberfest contributes any additional money, I have no idea.

Fest halls and events Pay for the police officers. It is called a paid duty.  You can't compare Octoberfest to and ileagl gathering.

For what it's worth, it was 'in comparison' to the St. Patrick's Day party. I was simply suggesting the amount of money Oktoberfest costs the region is peanuts compared to the St. Paddy's. And I highlighted that Oktoberfest brings in more money to the region than it costs us in the end. I had already deducted police hours used at Fest halls.
Reply
(04-15-2018, 04:26 PM)jeffster Wrote:
(04-15-2018, 07:17 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote: Fest halls and events Pay for the police officers. It is called a paid duty.  You can't compare Octoberfest to and ileagl gathering.

For what it's worth, it was 'in comparison' to the St. Patrick's Day party.  I was simply suggesting the amount of money Oktoberfest costs the region is peanuts compared to the St. Paddy's. And I highlighted that Oktoberfest brings in more money to the region than it costs us in the end.  I had already deducted police hours used at Fest halls.

It i odd that a multiple day event that covers a larger area has cheaper policing costs than ezra st.
Reply
(04-15-2018, 03:29 PM)jeffster Wrote:
(04-15-2018, 02:43 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: You cannot call peaceful assembly an illegal riot just to justify taking away peoples rights.

I'm so sick and tired of this discussion because it is nothing more than prejudice against students.

It's not prejudice against students, at all.  

However, the activities of the students: 1) Public intoxication, 2) Blocking a roadway, 3) Underage drinking, are all illegal.

You could also add that there is a capacity by-law being broken too.

And as I had mentioned before, these unsanctioned event don't contribute to the enjoyment of the region (therefore, the students are prejudiced against all non-students) nor do they contribute financially towards the costs related to the event, which we now have the numbers for. $713,000 to benefit a very small and selfish, ignorant, portion of our population, for the sole purpose of getting drunk. This greatly exceeds the costs for the 9 day Oktoberfest that we have, which, for all intents and purposes, pays for itself.

If those students want to contribute $40 each to cover our costs, then fine....

1) What is public intoxication.  You do that when you leave a bar.  It's not illegal unless they're being disorderly or disrupting the peace, that generally wasn't happening at this party, it was quite orderly and calm, and when it was not the police ticketed and/or arrested those individuals.

2)  Blocking a roadway, ffs, they were using a street, it's a residential street, it's intention is to be a public space, it's usually used for cars, but it isn't wrong to use it for a party.  And, the police closed the road in the interests of public safety, because the people there did not fit on the sidewalk, so actually, the police legally closed the road.

3)  See number 1.

Enjoyment of the region, sure, I don't enjoy many events that occur in the region including this one, but many people *do* enjoy the events on Ezra St., I'm not going to judge those who do.  Those who do are students or visitors to the region, and that's just fine, those groups of people are both entitled to enjoy our region same as I do.

As for costs, again, I don't know what the general policy is, and I don't know why those costs were incurred, if you want to argue for an organized event, I am absolutely there, it should be an organized event.

Maybe you're not prejudiced against students, I never said you specifically were, but just like I don't agree with treating all students involved in this event the same as those who were breaking the law, you probably don't agree with being treated the same as everyone who is obviously prejudiced against students who rants about this event, and that's totally fair.  Although I will point out when you call those students (22,000 of them all) "selfish and ignorant" I do have to wonder.
Reply
(04-15-2018, 04:56 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:   Although I will point out when you call those students (22,000 of them all) "selfish and ignorant" I do have to wonder.

Because they're draining the resources that the region has (EMS in particular, this isn't a fire hazard and the policing is being taken care of), which risks the entire region. And I do know in fact that the students were spoken to regarding the event. Some listen. Some don't. Some were more interested in having a party in their apartment and were upset with their landlord for limiting capacity. So didn't have that issue, so we don't hear about that. Nor do we hear about the students bar hopping.

And it is selfish to put the ENTIRE region at risk just so you can enjoy a few too many. That's all that I am saying...

Public intoxication is a provincial offence, so no record, unless you're doing something else illegal. The police can arrest someone and throw them in the drunk tank and release you later on with a $65 fine, IIRC. They do this so you don't do something stupid (like hurt yourself) or do something stupid (like get into a fight and really hurt someone) then blame being drunk for you actions. In cases like that, if someone is at this party, gets drunk, interacts with the police (but no arrest) but later gets into a fight (and hurts or kills someone), then a good lawyer will get this person off a serious change because the police failed to do their job.
Reply
(04-15-2018, 12:12 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: This event fails the following parts parts:

a)  Common intent.
b)  Disturbing the peace.


As for A, if there was no common intent then you are trying to tell me that 22,000 people just happened to show up at the same place, at the same time, to do the same thing? There was no pre-planning? No one premeditatively purchased alcohol or booked a bus or coordinated travel plans? How is that not common intent?

As for B, how did the group not disturb the peace? Disturbing the peace is defined as:
Causing disturbance, indecent exhibition, loitering, etc.
175 (1) Every one who
(a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,
(i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language,
(ii) by being drunk, or
(iii) by impeding or molesting other persons,
(b) openly exposes or exhibits an indecent exhibition in a public place,
© loiters in a public place and in any way obstructs persons who are in that place, or
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Even the police chief says it was illegal, "How do we have a lawful celebration?"

The charter guarantees freedom to peaceful assembly, not freedom of assembly. The right to peaceful assembly does not protect gatherings that seriously disturb the peace and does not include the right to physically impede or blockade lawful activities. On top of that, extra legal measures the provinces and municipalities (reasonable regulation (by-laws) of public space and associated public health and safety matters) are allowed and do not infringe of the freedom to peacefully assemble.

You are free to peacefully assemble in this community, but some cases you need to get the permit/exemption (noise, road blockage, alcohol, etc.): "A special event permit is required by any person or organization wanting to hold an event that involves the use of the municipal right of way (roadways and sidewalks). This includes but is not limited to, parades/processions, street dance/party, festival/carnival, race/walk-a-thon, demonstration or any similar event that requires a lane/road closure or may interfere with the normal flow of traffic." That was not done in this case, therefore it was against the law.

Just because the police are afraid of inciting the mob further and didn’t use the riot squad and arrest everyone doesn’t mean it wasn’t a riot. A riot doesn’t have to be violent like in Vancouver or Toronto in recent years. Just like when by-law doesn't enforce the no parking by-law it doesn't mean the drivers aren’t breaking the law.

I guess this is what happens when by-law selective starts enforcing by-laws (e.g. parking in bike lanes), everyone just starts selectively choosing which laws are going to apply to them in a given situation.
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
(04-15-2018, 08:44 PM)Pheidippides Wrote:
(04-15-2018, 12:12 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: This event fails the following parts parts:

a)  Common intent.
b)  Disturbing the peace.


As for A, if there was no common intent then you are trying to tell me that 22,000 people just happened to show up at the same place, at the same time, to do the same thing? There was no pre-planning? No one premeditatively purchased alcohol or booked a bus or coordinated travel plans? How is that not common intent?

As for B, how did the group not disturb the peace? Disturbing the peace is defined as:
Causing disturbance, indecent exhibition, loitering, etc.
175 (1) Every one who
(a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,
(i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language,
(ii) by being drunk, or
(iii) by impeding or molesting other persons,
(b) openly exposes or exhibits an indecent exhibition in a public place,
© loiters in a public place and in any way obstructs persons who are in that place, or
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Even the police chief says it was illegal, "How do we have a lawful celebration?"

The charter guarantees freedom to peaceful assembly, not freedom of assembly. The right to peaceful assembly does not protect gatherings that seriously disturb the peace and does not include the right to physically impede or blockade lawful activities. On top of that, extra legal measures the provinces and municipalities (reasonable regulation (by-laws) of public space and associated public health and safety matters) are allowed and do not infringe of the freedom to peacefully assemble.

You are free to peacefully assemble in this community, but some cases you need to get the permit/exemption (noise, road blockage, alcohol, etc.): "A special event permit is required by any person or organization wanting to hold an event that involves the use of the municipal right of way (roadways and sidewalks). This includes but is not limited to, parades/processions, street dance/party, festival/carnival, race/walk-a-thon, demonstration or any similar event that requires a lane/road closure or may interfere with the normal flow of traffic." That was not done in this case, therefore it was against the law.

Just because the police are afraid of inciting the mob further and didn’t use the riot squad and arrest everyone doesn’t mean it wasn’t a riot. A riot doesn’t have to be violent like in Vancouver or Toronto in recent years. Just like when by-law doesn't enforce the no parking by-law it doesn't mean the drivers aren’t breaking the law.

I guess this is what happens when by-law selective starts enforcing by-laws (e.g. parking in bike lanes), everyone just starts selectively choosing which laws are going to apply to them in a given situation.

So your argument is they are guilty of failure to file paperwork.

Were you actually there?

This continual insistence that it was illegal is a fundamental attack on our basic rights.  The chief of police's public statements do not constitute anything, he's also publicly stated he wants to find a way to prevent large public gatherings.  He also claimed you'd be arrested for yelling or swearing.

And I'll say again, none of those things you highlighted in bold apply.  It was a calm, gathering of people.  If that's a crime, I've committed many crimes when I've participated in public demonstrations.

And quite frankly, the police don't think it's illegal either. If they did, they wouldn't be trying to figure out ways to make it illegal.
Reply
(04-15-2018, 10:14 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: And quite frankly, the police don't think it's illegal either. If they did, they wouldn't be trying to figure out ways to make it illegal.


They don't think it's illegal? And they're trying to figure out ways to make it illegal?

Can you at least provide some proof for those statements?
Reply


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

              Advertise