Town Becomes a Beer Ad, but Residents Don’t Feel Like a Party(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Town Becomes a Beer Ad, but Residents Don’t Feel Like a Party
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/colorado-town-prepares-to-become-beer-ad.html
43 comments
While there are enough unhappy people to quote in an article, there's no evidence a majority of the townspeople object, either as a superficial gut reaction, or after deliberate consideration of all costs and benefits.
For the duration of the current officeholders' terms, decisions about such use of public space have been delegated to them. Unless those officeholders have done something corrupt or illegal – which does not seem to be alleged – then the residents can choose new management at the next election.
I kind of doubt they will. As long as cleanup is thorough, the lingering impact is all good: money and more visitors next high season. Even the opportunity to have had something to "rail against", and get quoted in the NYTimes as a rural local, was a positive. (I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that locals have exaggerated their respective positions to obtain marginally more media coverage about the "real town" from the event.)
For the duration of the current officeholders' terms, decisions about such use of public space have been delegated to them. Unless those officeholders have done something corrupt or illegal – which does not seem to be alleged – then the residents can choose new management at the next election.
I kind of doubt they will. As long as cleanup is thorough, the lingering impact is all good: money and more visitors next high season. Even the opportunity to have had something to "rail against", and get quoted in the NYTimes as a rural local, was a positive. (I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that locals have exaggerated their respective positions to obtain marginally more media coverage about the "real town" from the event.)
The reason they are calling it, "Whatever, USA" is this contest is part of the "Up For Whatever" campaign. Another event in this campaign was the Superbowl commercial where they take a guy out for "the night of his life", after agreeing to someone asking him if he, "was up for whatever happens next".
I understand the negative and dismissive feeling "whatever" conveys, though it makes sense in the context of the campaign.
I understand the negative and dismissive feeling "whatever" conveys, though it makes sense in the context of the campaign.
These mountain town always suffer from having split identities. On the one hand you have people who desperately look to outsiders/tourists to keep themselves in business. On the other hand you have a group of people that despise all these outsiders for clogging up traffic and stomping all over everything.
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.
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.
I snowboard every chance I get, and this hits the nail on the head. You always get a bunch of idiots that refuse to understand that they live in a resort town, and that the town only exists because of all the tourist dollars. It's the tradeoff you have to understand if you're going to live there. In the article, the town is getting a "donation" of 5% of their annual budget in order to let budweiser turn it into a frathouse for 3 days. It's probably a good trade considering what towns like that are and how they're perpetually cash starved.
You always get the pretentious rich jerks who retire there and think it's Marthas Vineyard, not a town full of skibums whose goals are pot, pbr, and 120 days of snowboarding a year (and don't get me wrong, no hate for skibums; I'm jealous...)
You always get the pretentious rich jerks who retire there and think it's Marthas Vineyard, not a town full of skibums whose goals are pot, pbr, and 120 days of snowboarding a year (and don't get me wrong, no hate for skibums; I'm jealous...)
I can't believe it's Crested Butte. That blows my mind.
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.
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.
Agreed.
It's offensive they did this to any town. It's especially offensive they did it to crested butte, because it flies in the face of what the place is all about.
I was really close to moving there a couple years ago, and I still might one day, but an event like this would have made me furious.
It's offensive they did this to any town. It's especially offensive they did it to crested butte, because it flies in the face of what the place is all about.
I was really close to moving there a couple years ago, and I still might one day, but an event like this would have made me furious.
i absolutely hate how companies are able to enable this kind of idiotic partying and general disrespect for the people and things around them. so they are paying some money to the town- i would much rather not get paid than have a bunch of dumbass college kids getting stupid drunk and not giving a fuck where they are, all while making a commercial to enable more people to follow suit.
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.
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.
I wonder if the town Chief Wiggum is also being paid to look the other way when 1000 drunk people destroy the place.
|getting drunk and partying is fun, but this kind of thing really seems to cater to the lowest common denominator and ignorance.
Right or wrong, from a business standpoint that's exactly the market Anheuser-Busch is trying to appeal to here. The college party scene.
Right or wrong, from a business standpoint that's exactly the market Anheuser-Busch is trying to appeal to here. The college party scene.
[deleted]
I'd like to see a First Amendment challenge to this. From the article:
> [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.
> [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.
Sadly, after Kelo v. City of New London it seems that "significant government interest" can mean "anything which makes the government any amount of money".
Temporarily limiting access to a street, as for a festival, is not going to be seen by courts as an action "to limit expressive activity" – unless, perhaps, it was specifically scheduled to disrupt some usual expressive activity.
The community likely has other events, during the busy tourist season, with similar temporary restrictions of public spaces. Notably, one of the residents quoted as objecting to this event is a founder a summer music festival in the same town, which sells tickets, that appears to also convert usually-open public spaces into temporary paid-access venues.
The community likely has other events, during the busy tourist season, with similar temporary restrictions of public spaces. Notably, one of the residents quoted as objecting to this event is a founder a summer music festival in the same town, which sells tickets, that appears to also convert usually-open public spaces into temporary paid-access venues.
$500,000 might qualify as significant government interest.
They close streets frequently. For movie shoots, parades, etc. And I don't even know that $500,000 is involved in those closures.
They close streets frequently. For movie shoots, parades, etc. And I don't even know that $500,000 is involved in those closures.
Music festivals and other events are held in public spaces all the time. By the look of the town, the detour around the shut down areas might take a whole extra 20 seconds.
You're missing the highly relevant, distinguishing factor:
At one end of the spectrum are streets and parks
It's the main street of the town, not an open field or fairgrounds.
At one end of the spectrum are streets and parks
It's the main street of the town, not an open field or fairgrounds.
I went to highschool in Half.com (Halfway, Oregon). The town has reverted back to calling its self Halfway, but many of the residents did not like the town's decision to sell out, as could be easily gleaned when seeing the bullet riddled "Welcome to Half.com" sign on the highway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halfway,_Oregon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halfway,_Oregon
I can see this from both angles. The first angle is, the mayor has gone ahead and from what I gather from the story, secretly withheld the agreement and failed to inform the locals or even let them have a say/voice their opinion. People just want to be heard, and when local politicians go making decisions that affect the town (however big or small) without consulting the inhabitants, of course people are going to be angry about this.
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.
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.
Seems like this is a golden opportunity for a consortium of microbreweries to run youtube ad campaigns:
"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")
"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")
[deleted]
>CRESTED BUTTE, Colo.
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
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
It's a three day event with an estimated boost of $2,000,000 to the local economy.
Boo hoo. Suck it up and enjoy the music.
My sis lives there and made $1000 waiting tables last night, a big win for a college kid
For those of you downvoting, do you really think that a 3 day event caused any real impact to the quality of life of the people in this town?
What boost of quality of life did the event bring to those in the town that enjoy things like music and alcohol?
Boost of quality of life for those that enjoyed it + $2,000,000 economic boost - 3 day interruption to those that didn't enjoy it = ?
What boost of quality of life did the event bring to those in the town that enjoy things like music and alcohol?
Boost of quality of life for those that enjoyed it + $2,000,000 economic boost - 3 day interruption to those that didn't enjoy it = ?
The blow to collective dignity may well be a bigger loss than the 2,000,000. The message is something like your small town can be the next Tijuana. So now arrive the losers (alcoholic frat wannabes ) and the parasites (liquor companies and other purveyors of vice). A lot of them will stay, bringing both cash and fucked up behavior, and the town may drift toward being a place that caters toward the worst of humanity (yuck). Some folks will be happy for that, seeing the money, but some of us are disgusted, seeing the degradation on all sides, whether selling or buying. No, I don't like Bourbon Street or Indian Casinos either, no matter how much money gets made.
Where's this $2m coming from? The article says the company are paying ("donating") $500,000 and that drinks will be unlimited - which presumably means provided by the company?
Will the 1000 party goers spend $1.5m? $1500 each at a 3 day party where you're not paying for drink sounds really high.
Will the 1000 party goers spend $1.5m? $1500 each at a 3 day party where you're not paying for drink sounds really high.
Likely from all the preparations, and hiring the local restaurants/bars/etc on the main drag. Who is going to clean up all the blue paint and throwup? Local guys I guess.
http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/2014/09/05/crested-but...
"Overall, Crested Butte is expecting to receive an impact boost of $2,000,000, according to Anheuser-Busch's estimations."
"Overall, Crested Butte is expecting to receive an impact boost of $2,000,000, according to Anheuser-Busch's estimations."
Hotels, food, drink and other necessities for the 1000 party-goers, plus hiring local staff to run the event. Bud light is not really going to support you for three days straight.
All that money doesn't go the inconvenienced people.
My favourite music festival is Sappy Fest. It's held in Sackville, New Brunswick, a small town of around 5000 people, Sackville.
http://noisey.vice.com/en_ca/blog/sappyfest-is-atlantic-cana...
In 2011 fresh off their grammy win for best album, Arcade Fire played as a surprise act to a 1000 person tent under the name of Shark Attack.
http://noisey.vice.com/en_ca/blog/sappyfest-is-atlantic-cana...
In 2011 fresh off their grammy win for best album, Arcade Fire played as a surprise act to a 1000 person tent under the name of Shark Attack.
There is nothing worse than the cynicism of a small-town mindset. So many great opportunities are missed by people who are unwilling to take a chance. The town I grew up in is like this and, after moving away for nearly a decade and seeing what the real world is like, I find it excruciatingly difficult to go back for a weekend visit.
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,’ ”
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,’ ”
Holding on to your values even when offered money to abandon them is cynicism now?
The mayor wears flip flops. I'm guessing the "values" of a few wet blankets don't reflect the values of the general population.
I'm not going to make uniformed guesses about numbers or throw around insulting names. And if it was me then maybe I'd cynically take the money and grit my teeth at the poor-quality mass-produced beer on advertisement for a few days. But there's still something to admire about saying "no" to all that.
I'm not from the town, but I bet that wasn't his attitude during the last election.
By that metric, flip-flops seem appropriate.
By that metric, flip-flops seem appropriate.
There's more to the welfare of a community than its monetary value. This is event is absurdly demoralizing ("Whatever, USA"?), and I personally couldn't be paid enough money to get over the lasting effects.
Absolutely awful!
(That I didn't get invited...)
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.)
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.)
Except you're not allowed to go drink beer in the street:
access to the main street will be restricted to people with company-issued bracelets
Does knowing that alter your opinion? That's not intended as a slight, btw. I'm genuinely curious.
access to the main street will be restricted to people with company-issued bracelets
Does knowing that alter your opinion? That's not intended as a slight, btw. I'm genuinely curious.
Well, since it's a hypothetical scenario, I'd have the free beer bracelet of course...
And if I didn't, I would still be OK with the event (if I were a resident). 3 days loss of access to main street and some minor inconvenience is a small price to pay for the economic benefits for the community.
And if I didn't, I would still be OK with the event (if I were a resident). 3 days loss of access to main street and some minor inconvenience is a small price to pay for the economic benefits for the community.
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.