Town Becomes a Beer Ad, but Residents Don’t Feel Like a Party

For instance, if someone called NYC "Whatever, USA": you would probably think them ignorant as even if you've never been to the city, you likely know at least some of the things that give the city its unique identity.

For the people who know and love their precious hometown, to sit by and watch while it is stripped of its identity and rebranded as "Whatever" must be a tough pill to swallow even if it is only temporary and brings in revenue.

The other obvious issue is that the contract was undertaken unilaterally by the town government in secret. For the mayor to take on a contract that affects all residents in such a major way as road closures for street painting, and shutting down the town for a multi-day rager without consulting the people seems incredibly careless, especially considering that there's no real way to hide such an event.

Projects like this can at least be introduced to the community in the town hall for discussion before obligating the town to a contract to avoid secrecy as generally (at least in terms of governmental operations): if you have to hide what you're doing, it's likely something you shouldn't be doing.

For now, many of the people of the town have to deal with an event they didn't want for money that will be spent on a "yet-to-be-determined capital project" that will likely be decided on in the same unilateral fashion as the town was decided to be prostituted for a party by someone who was okay with labeling the town "Whatever" in secret.

From my understanding, people generally elect officials to represent and hold true to the town's identity and increase the welfare of the people of the community, not rebrand it as "Whatever, USA" and annoy the people of the town because it makes some money for a potential future project.

With the actions of the town officials, I would say the residents are rightly pissed. Money is not the only measure of utility.

The problem is that locals fall in love with all the amenities provided by tourist dollars, and hate when they're standing in line in front of them.

For folks not aware, the bulk of Crested Butte's tourism industry depends on its reputation as a less-well-known, authentic, unspoiled, laid-back "real mountain town" that has not been overly commercialized. That is the only reason that people with money choose to go there instead of better-known and better-appointed towns like Aspen, Vail, Telluride, etc.

This stupid event gives that reputation a huge black eye. It seems obvious that the town leadership has no idea how thin the thread is that their tourism dollars hang on.

To be clear: the skier bums and lifer mountain bikers and kayakers will still come to Crested Butte because it's got great outdoor resources, and is much less expensive than the fancy Colorado towns. But the well-off tourists, who are the backbone of any tourism economy, might not.

Reputation matters. Imagine if Linus Torvalds took a million dollars to appear in a Microsoft ad. He couldn't just go back to running the Linux kernel the same way, even if he wanted to.

getting drunk and partying is fun, but this kind of thing really seems to cater to the lowest common denominator and ignorance. not to mention the deal was made in secret- i think the citizens of the town have every right to be mad.

> [A]ccess to the main street will be restricted to people with company-issued bracelets

Justice White, for the Court:

In places which, by long tradition or by government fiat, have been devoted to assembly and debate, the rights of the State to limit expressive activity are sharply circumscribed. At one end of the spectrum are streets and parks, which "have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions." [0]

Restrictions based on time, place, and manner must satisfy three requirements [1]:

1. Content neutral

2. Narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest

3. Leave open ample alternative channels of communication

The article is short in details, but #2 would seem to be the death blow. The broad, sweeping nature of a blanket restriction of access to the town's main thoroughfare is highly suspect.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves. First, the government is going to have to show how a three-day drunk fest meets the definition of a "significant government interest."

[0]Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983).

[1] Id.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halfway,_Oregon

Then you can see it from the other angle. The $500k sum is just a fee for the company to have the right to have the party, think of it as a leasing fee. When you factor in all of the other things like accommodation, food, labour, cabling, generators, lighting and the fact 1000 people flocking to local stores, staff, law enforcement/security and then the clean-up, presumably that is going to significantly boost the local economy quite a lot.

If the party is properly controlled and constrained within the designated street, is it really hurting anyone? Financially hotels/motels are going to be the biggest winners and probably rarely experience an influx of 1000+ visitors at once staying for 3 days. Aside from the fact a company that produces alcoholic beverages is throwing a party and potentially sending the wrong message to some, put aside the moral indifference and it's just a controlled party being attended by young young young.

The inhabitants against the party need to understand they live in a town most likely being kept alive by tourists anyway. There will always be resistance to any kind of change (however temporary), especially those who spent a lot of money moving there (investors and retirees especially). The drinking and partying is already happening (albeit on a small scale) and like pointed out, will give the local economy a significant boost and could potentially result in some of the attendees coming to the party liking the place and coming back for a holiday at a later time. This party has also generated a lot of publicity for the town, people that haven't heard of the place before might be more inclined to visit now that they've heard of it.

I can see the good and bad, and unless I am just being ignorant and not seeing the bigger picture, it seems the good outweighs the bad in this situation.

"At Hood River | Deschutes | Ninkasi | Whatever (haha), we care about our community, starting here in 19XX, investing yyyy in local infrastructure, employing zzz, supporting aaa at schools, etc. This is our home, NOT a whatever place for us, and we think you care your about home too. So support microbrews, the NOT whatever beer."

(EDIT: "youtube")

And this is what they're upset about?

Hey, it could be worse, a town in TX changed their name to Dish for free cable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dish,_Texas

The mayor is spot-on when he says “It is not every day that you have a company that comes in and says: ‘We want to donate half a million to your community. We want to hire your locals. We want to work with your bars and restaurants,’ ”

I don't get what the big deal is. It's not like they are taking the town over permanently. Suck it up, take the money, go inside for a few days if it bothers you. Or go on vacation and come back when it's over. Thing will be back to normal soon enough and the town will have more money.

(Or, buy a funny hat and go drink beer in the street. That's what I'd do.)