.jpg)
It was a big tab indeed.
And the city attorney in Los Angeles plans to investigate the $1.4-million bill. generated by the Michael Jackson memorial.
But, as the LA Times reported, some within both local and state government in California believe there may be long term financial gains in sight as a result of Tuesday's investment.
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was forced to admit, however, that the city's effort to solicit online donations to pay for the Michael Jackson memorial was a miserable failure.
It raised only $17,000 before the server hosting the city of LA's website crashed from a surge of unprecedented web traffic.
No matter how you slice it, the City of Angels is stuck with the tab.
It's a reality that has some within municipal government debating "how this was allowed to happen."
City Councilman Dennis Zine:
"This was a private memorial for a celebrity singer, Michael Jackson," he said. "And no disrespect to him, his family or his fans, but why should the people of Los Angeles be obligated to pay for what they decided to do? They could have had a service at Forest Lawn, they could have had a service at a local church. They decided to have a memorial of this magnitude and have a worldwide event." - LA Times
On the other hand, Jack Kyser, chief economist for the LA Economic Development Corp., told the LA Times that "his group estimated that the memorial brought about $4 million to local businesses in the form of food sales, parking, miscellaneous shopping and hotel stays."
Despite the enormous expense, for now Los Angeles residents and Michael Jackson fans alike are apparently siding with the theory presented by Joel Kotkin, presidential fellow at Chapman University in Orange County: "If there is a positive," he said, "it's that it sort of reconfirmed L.A.'s status as a capital of pop music, celebrity, and lunacy. . . . That's infinitely more important than a one-day event."