Opinion: Who’s responsible for picking up the Rams’ security tab?

To the editor: In “No freebies for the Rams,” The Times editorial board this week pointed out: “With all the celebrating and backslapping by city leaders on the return of professional football to Los Angeles, apparently somebody forgot to figure out who’s going to pay for all the security around the Coliseum.”

Oh, right, there’s that.

As the editorial said, “The debate is over who should cover the cost outside the stadium — including parking lots and surrounding neighborhoods — on game days, which are expected to draw up to 70,000 fans.”

Times readers had more than a few thoughts:

—Sara Lessley, Letters to the Editor department

Philip Tesler in Sherman Oaks asks:

Isn’t it bad enough that the 405 freeway, which is already the most congested freeway around, will probably wind up being gridlocked on game days -- especially for weeknight games when commuters are getting on the freeway in West L.A?

Why should taxpayers have to foot the bill for security? This should be entirely paid for by the Rams. They’re the ones making money on these events. Bringing the Rams to L.A was a deal with the devil.

Joan Walston in Santa Monica says others are ponying up:

For 30 years, our family business has been producing special events, mostly foot races for local nonprofit organizations. Every dime these groups must pay the city -- and that generally comes to a four-figure amount -- is money that would otherwise have gone to the charity.

It’s way past time for Rams owner Stan Kroenke to quit stonewalling and write a check. If nonprofit organizations in Los Angeles have to foot the bill for their own security, a multimillion-dollar professional football team should be required to do no less.

Neal Sheade in Los Angeles concurs:

I am in complete agreement with the sentiment of the editorial -- that the city of LA, the county of LA, and its taxpayers should not foot the bill for security for a billion-dollar corporation.

As noted in the editorial, city law states that event sponsors should pay for extra services. Since, as also noted, the NFL requires adequate security around the stadiums, I would assume the NFL would not allow a game to proceed if there was no such security. Therefore I propose: If Kroenke and the Rams do not agree to reimburse for expenses already incurred ... , simply do not provide it. Let the NFL enforce its own requirements on the owner, in order to hold the games and earn all that money.

And Nancy Cobb in Palm Springs looks ahead:

A possible solution for outside-the-Coliseum security for football games was featured in your business section: Robots that rent for a lot less than what it costs to pay for human security guards. It could be a test case for events such as a possible 2024 LA Olympics.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook