We pay for all kinds of security and safety that we shouldn't have to pay for...mountain rescues come to mind.  People climb mountains and when they fall, loads of taxpayer money is required to rescue them, even though doing something stupid like climbing a mountain, traversing crevasses, etc. is completely unnecessary to the public good (and I say this even though my husband climbed Mt. Rainier (but no he didn't fall)).  IMHO.

So, why should this be different?

Nevertheless, like Elvis did for an older generation, Michael brought joy into the lives of untold millions of people, the massive outpouring of public grief and sympathy is very real, and the people deserve the collective opportunity to mourn him in public.

That makes his memorial service by any definition a public event, and that's what taxpayer money is supposed to be used for. The inevitability of such public events, regardless of reason or rationale, is why states and municipalities should always maintain adequate public contingency funds, for just these very occasions.

But be that as it should be, given that the City of Los Angeles is in severe financial straits, I'd gladly donate a few bucks to defray the public cost, if most everyone else is willing to do the same.

That said, I also think the media's lurid and gratuitously speculative coverage of what we tend to forget is also a very personal family tragedy, is rather excessive and over-the-top.

So if it's all the same to all of you, I'll forgo my own vicarious presence via TV, offer a silent prayer for someone whom I'd always considered a sad and troubled soul, and hope that in eternal rest Michael will finally know peace.

Los Olivos and the surrounding areas have zero capacity to deal with an onslaught of fans of this magnitude.

You would think the music business, L.A. being the epicenter of it wouldn't worry about security costs for the funeral of one of their biggest stars ever and flip the bill.