Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Want to talk about tickets? You've come to the right place

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby Foxfur » Wed Jul 25, 2012 10:43 pm

trilobyte wrote:I don't think calling it a leave no trace event is inappropriate, I read it as an aspiration. To argue that it should be changed is kind of like arguing that Virginia is for lovers should be changed because that bitch/asshole you fell for in Virginia Beach didn't love you back.

I love you man!

theCryptofishist wrote:
some seeing eye wrote:I think it just requires the impacts be considered and that users conform to their predictions of impact. But I'm not up on case law.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "users conform to their predictions of impact". I mean if it's a poorly prepared thing, no one may be able to. But I've heard about some real dogs (excuse the term, canine eplayans) getting approval.

No offense taken.
I am vulpine.
He's a mystery wrapped in a riddle, inside an enigma, painted in hot pants. - Savannah
Propane ToysImage
How to do it wrong:
Image
User avatar
Foxfur
 
Posts: 2332
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 6:43 am
Location: Banks, Oregon
Burning Since: 2011
Camp Name: 404 Village Not Found

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby DrYes » Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:39 pm

trilobyte wrote:I don't think calling it a leave no trace event is inappropriate, I read it as an aspiration. To argue that it should be changed is kind of like arguing that Virginia is for lovers should be changed because that bitch/asshole you fell for in Virginia Beach didn't love you back.


Aspiration is great, but the event is not engineered to be leave no trace. You can't have a week-long festival in a desert hundreds or thousands of miles from where everyone's coming from without the event causing one heck of a trace to be left. And while we're at the event, there are giant art cars roaming around burning fossil fuels for no purpose but entertainment, generators firing away, sequestered carbon being released from burning stuff, etc.

I got married recently, and went to a remote part of Indonesia for our honeymoon. We stayed at an 'eco-resort' in a little-populated area about 5 hours boat ride from the nw tip of Papua/Papua New Guinea. They made quite an effort, and a genuine one at that. All the wood in their mostly wood buildings was fallen wood on that island or nearby islands. Fantastic! It's one of the only places in the world that the reef is making a comeback rather than slowly (or quickly) dying. Awesome!

And then you see how much gas they burn to power the place (including aircon in the bungalows), and to take people back and forth on the 5 hour boat ride with a speedboat with three gigantic motors. Not to mention that all the visitors fly in, some of us making four airplane hops to get to the place from which the boat takes you there. And all the dive boats burning craploads of gas taking people around to dive sites, etc.

So was it dishonest marketing to call it an eco-resort, or is that aspirational? Probably somewhere in between I guess.
Burning Man 2013 video || Burning Man 2013 photos
Burning Man 2012 video
Burning Man 2011 video

"We'll never leave, look at us now, so in love with the way we are."
User avatar
DrYes
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:22 pm
Burning Since: 2010
Camp Name: Camp Tasty Bits (w/ the Stimulus Tree)

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby AngelGrrrl » Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:00 am

Anyone Read This?

Increase in Burning Man crowd size challenged
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Incr ... 726557.php

Praying 4 a TkT
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
AngelGrrrl
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:46 pm
Burning Since: 2004

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby cxbrx » Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:45 am

Jackass wrote:So what's the real issue here cxbrx? Is it the fact that your formerly intimate gathering is now growing to numbers that you find unacceptable or is it that you "can't" landsail anymore? You're worried over dunes yet you suggest paving the desert? If you really wanna see the surface disturbed I guess that would do the trick. Im sure a patch a asphalt in the middle of this lakebed would last maybe 10 years before it cracks to pieces and falls apart. Why not pave yourself a narrow strip up one side of the playa for landsailing, that would be cheaper and less intrusive


The first point of the appeal is that Burning Man is being rewarded for allegedly going over the 50,000 population limit.

The second point is that the BLM has never completed the Special Recreation Permit process by providing a performance evaluation.

The third point is the dunes.

In the AP article, both the BLM and the LLC respond to the third issue. The BLM says that they won't respond to the population issue while the LLC's appeal is in process. I'd like to hear the BLM respond to the second issue sometime.

The real issue with the first two points is that the BLM fails to follow their own rules. If they are doing this with the Burning Man SRP, what about all the other SRPs? Who know what sort of shenanigans are going on?

The real issue with the third point is that there is a limit to the size of event. Each person has a different opinion about that limit. For example, at a certain point, it will not be possible to move everyone on to the playa and back off the playa in a week because either the sheer numbers of attendees or because dust storms will cause the organizers to prevent entrance or exit.

The "Pave the Playa" idea is a modest proposal a la Jonathan Swift. I agree that it has problems. However, if it were possible to have pavement, then that would reduce the dust. Do you have any ideas on how to reduce the dust?
cxbrx
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:20 pm
Burning Since: 1995

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby lemur » Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:04 am

NICE TROLL..
Don't link to anything here!
User avatar
lemur
 
Posts: 3599
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:07 pm
Location: Madagascar
Camp Name: Plug N Play Camp

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby junglesmacks » Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:04 am

Shut up, hippie.


EDIT: You beat me to it, lemur. Fuck this guy.
Savannah wrote:It sounds freaky & wrong, so you need to do it.
User avatar
junglesmacks
 
Posts: 5809
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 9:54 pm
Location: Orlando, FL/Kailua, HI
Camp Name: Your mom's tent

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby cxbrx » Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:34 am

@DrYes: At its peak, the big land sail event was at most 120 people. Different environment have different limits. I agree that 50k land sailors would have a large impact. Part of my point is that it is worth having a conversation that we are having a negative impact and that it is worth it. Let's be honest and move on from "Leave No Trace" to "Tread Lightly". Others have said that aspiring to LNT is worth it, but I think that being honest trumps. However, there is the tyranny of the majority issue - basically, you are saying that the wants of 60,900 override the wants of a few hundred. A different example is limiting the number of back country permits. Popular hiking areas require a permit for various reasons. In many ways, it would be great to get 50,000 people up Half Dome (think of the buzz :-) !) However, the practicalities of getting people up and down with the ensuing lines and the degradation of the area and the experience resulted in limits being placed. These limits are controversial, some say there should be no limits.

If Burning Man is not causing the dunes, then why do these dunes only appear on the Black Rock Desert? Any there is only one picture of these dunes since before 2000?

@vargaso: It seems like you agree with me, but then you write that the appeal is wrongheaded. Can you write more?

@Foxfur: How do you feel about the first two points of the appeal?

@ Bay Bridge Sue: There is a research paper about dust storms from the BRD, see http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2 ... 4784.shtml
Do you have any sense of where the dust came from in the Winnemucca 2007 dust storm?
About taking pictures grandeur vs serpents, it seems like people find the serpents to be interesting. For example, Philippe Glade's 2011 book "Black Rock City, NV: The Ephemeral Architecture of Burning Man" has a picture of the serpents on the cover. One of the projects I've been thinking of is using Google Earth to find where pictures were taken in the past and then take pictures from a similar view point.

@Ruleryak: I think we are in agreement. The more moisture, the better the surface. There are a number of factors that control the amount of moisture on the desert. Most of the moisture comes from the Quinn River, which is fed from the North. Moisture that appears on the desert later in the year helps more than moisture earlier in part because later moisture keeps people off a portion of the desert and in part because the surface is "fresher". From observation, I've seen that years that have snow on the peaks later tend to have later moisture. There have been plenty of years when it has been dry on Memorial Day and wet right before the July 4th weekend. The amount of moisture seems to be related to El Nino. My point, which I probably did not express very well, is that the ability of the desert to recover is based on the amount of moisture. Another Swiftian modest proposal would be that the number of attendees should be based on the amount of rainfall :-) I agree that we've had two or three years of better playa than the previous years. This year was dry, what happens if next winter is dry? One thing we don't agree on is that there were basically zero dunes in 2011. There may have been few dunes within the city, but there were plenty of dunes outside the city. I'm fairly certain that the 2007 trash fence dune was still present in 2011, though it disappeared after the 2011 event.

@pink: My position is that the surface in 2008 was because of the huge volume of dust from the previous Burning Man events. If the year had been wetter, the dust would have been compacted. I think we agree that more moisture == better playa. If you have evidence that the land speed record left scars, then I'd like to see the evidence. Part of the land speed effort is to walk the track and remove debris including rocks and trash (Foreign Object Debris (FOD))- anything that could get sucked into a jet turbine. So, there could have been a cleaner area that was a few miles long. The land speed record camps *did* cause some incidental dune downwind from their temporary buildings. I've seen these dunes next to rvs at Burning Man as well. These dunes dissipated rather quickly. I don't think there were more than 200 people camped out for the land speed record, but I'd have to look into it further to confirm this. BTW - I'm not filing a lawsuit, this is an appeal to the permit in the same way that Burning Man is appeal the BLM's finding that Burning Man violated the 50,000 limit. In the past, Burning Man successfully appealed how the BLM charges the LLC for Burning Man using the same system. Also, I did not file for a stay, which could have actually prevented the sale of more tickets. In hindsight, perhaps I should have, but I chose not to do so.

@Bay Bridge Sue: I'm appealing the increase from 50,000 to 60,900, not the entire permit. I agree that it is in everyone's best interest to have a permitted Burning Man event over Labor Day. My second point about being sure that the BLM provides the Special Recreation Permit (SRP) mandated annual performance evaluation is in an effort to keep the BLM from surprising Burning Man with something like, "Well, Burning Man has failed to meet the XXX stipulation for the last N years so the BLM wil not grant a permit." Burning Man can only benefit from formal feedback from the BLM.

Many, many thanks to those that made thoughtful comments, I really appreciate it.
cxbrx
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:20 pm
Burning Since: 1995

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby thisisthatwhichis » Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:56 am

Assuming our appeal is granted, what is your expected outcome?

A. No more dunes?

B. Continue to reduce the city population year-over-year until there are no more dunes?

C. Enjoying watching 10,900 people be affected by their ticket cancelation?


Your timing couldn't be more selfish and brutal after this year's ticket fiasco. If you just wanted to open the issue for an intelligent dialog, why are you challenging the current cap in court at this time? Why not wait until after this year's event?
TITWI

To be on the wire is life. The rest is waiting.
It's show time, folks.....Joe Gideon
User avatar
thisisthatwhichis
 
Posts: 3586
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:18 pm
Location: Reno, NV

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby Dr. Pyro » Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:57 am

Because he's a big dick with ears, that's why.
User avatar
Dr. Pyro
 
Posts: 3675
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:11 am
Location: Newcastle, CA
Burning Since: 1999
Camp Name: Barbie Death Camp & Wine Bistro

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby theCryptofishist » Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:21 am

I don't have access to the scoping report (if any) and I took a quick look at both draft and final. There was discussion of particulate matter in the air, but I didn't see anything specifically about land sailing...
Simon's real sig line?

Embrace the Sock

Winners never quilt, quilters never win...
User avatar
theCryptofishist
 
Posts: 37469
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:28 am
Location: In Exile
Burning Since: 2017

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby Jackass » Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:19 pm

cxbrx wrote: Popular hiking areas require a permit for various reasons. In many ways, it would be great to get 50,000 people up Half Dome (think of the buzz :-) !) However, the practicalities of getting people up and down with the ensuing lines and the degradation of the area and the experience resulted in limits being placed. These limits are controversial, some say there should be no limits.



Don't tell me you lobbied for that whole half dome permit thing too, fucked it all up. Used to be an annual hike for me til the permit thing, now I don't bother. A permit to climb a rock or mountain? Fuck that! I see where you're going with this, your the kinda guy that lobbies for regulations and rules on everything.

Keep that shit in your own neck of the woods
Don't worry, it'll get weird...
User avatar
Jackass
 
Posts: 741
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:25 pm
Location: way out in left field

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby junglesmacks » Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:40 pm

Savannah wrote:It sounds freaky & wrong, so you need to do it.
User avatar
junglesmacks
 
Posts: 5809
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 9:54 pm
Location: Orlando, FL/Kailua, HI
Camp Name: Your mom's tent

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby plantmandan » Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:40 pm

To the lawsuit filer,

Just out of curiosity, do you plan on attending this year as well? Why are you trying to deny others the same experience that you, a long time burner, obviously cherish?

I see no reason why BRC can not continue to grow. It will take some problem solving, yes, but humans are good at that.
User avatar
plantmandan
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:42 am
Location: Colorado
Burning Since: 2002

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby fresh » Thu Jul 26, 2012 2:02 pm

cxbrx wrote:
The "Pave the Playa" idea is a modest proposal a la Jonathan Swift. I agree that it has problems. However, if it were possible to have pavement, then that would reduce the dust. Do you have any ideas on how to reduce the dust?


Boy imaging pounding all that rebar into asphalt!

trilobyte wrote:I don't think calling it a leave no trace event is inappropriate, I read it as an aspiration. To argue that it should be changed is kind of like arguing that Virginia is for lovers should be changed because that bitch/asshole you fell for in Virginia Beach didn't love you back.


I left my heart in San Francisco, but yet blood is still flowing through my veins!!! How does that work?!?!?
"All the worlds indeed a stage and we are merely players, performers and portrayers.
Each another's audience inside the gilded cage." - N. Peart
"SAFETY THIRD" - Some idiot
User avatar
fresh
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 1:53 am
Location: Roaring Fork Valley, CO
Burning Since: 2001
Camp Name: Black Rock Roller Disco

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby oneeyeddick » Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:52 pm

Dr. Pyro wrote:Because he's a big dick with ears, that's why.


Thanks for the new sig, doc Pyro!
We have an obligation to make space for everyone, we have no obligation to make that space pleasant.
User avatar
oneeyeddick
 
Posts: 5588
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:08 pm
Location: Probably in your pants
Burning Since: 1996

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby portaplaya » Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:34 pm

So one might ask if dunes are a "adverse" impact on the environment. They are, eventually, an inevitability for a dry lake bed, after all.

This location is not designated as wilderness (kind of too late, what with mines all of the place...). I agree that the presence of Burning Man has an impact. Heck, 50,000 people exhale more CO2 than 120 do, so that's an impact even if we had all walked there. But is that impact adverse? Does it affect wildlife? Is it pollution? Certainly this is not comparable to mountain top removal, which the government does allow.

Let's say that the BLM makes a deal to sell the land to the Burning Man Project, with the condition of open access on the existing playa roads. Certainly that is not impossible. Is that what you want? Then you would have no course of action. (http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/snplma/Land_Auctions.html).

If your argument is that people have an adverse impact and that this impact is directly proportional to the number of people, then there are only two choices:
A.) Set a number (perhaps arbitrarily) for an acceptable level of adverse impact.
B.) End the adverse impact completely.

For A, we already have a bid in on that number and that number is 75K. To reach that number the BLM and Burning Man are creeping up to that number gradually to make sure a hideous miscalculaton has not been made.

For B. Well that always remains an option.


One last thing: You say that BM was "rewarded" for exceeding the pop cap last year. Seems to me the BLM stuck with the pop-growth plan, which isn't much of a reward, and also put the event on probation with a promise to cancel the event with another violation. I know you think the pop increase was a "reward", and I can see that point of view in contrast to just holding the numbers steady. But probation is not much of a reward (ask Lindsey Lohan).
User avatar
portaplaya
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 6:49 pm
Location: Seattle area

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby theCryptofishist » Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:31 pm

Simon's real sig line?

Embrace the Sock

Winners never quilt, quilters never win...
User avatar
theCryptofishist
 
Posts: 37469
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:28 am
Location: In Exile
Burning Since: 2017

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby ranger magnum » Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:40 pm

All else aside I love the fact we live in a country where someone even has the ability to file an appeal.
Drugs may take you down the road to nowhere, but at least its the scenic route.
ranger magnum
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 12:05 pm
Location: santa barbara
Burning Since: 1996
Camp Name: Camp Yonder/Ottoman Empire

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby MikeGyver » Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:46 am

First off Your "Tread Lightly" instead of "Leave no Trace" is a counter productive, if "Tread Lightly" became the motto it would instill the thought into the peoples heads that they don't have to worry as much about Moop. In my opinion "tread lightly" puts the thought that one or two traces of a persons being there would be okay, so if 60k+ people all believe that then you have Hundreds of thousands of traces. Where as "Leave no Trace" being the aspiration the majority of people will make an effort to not leave a trace and therefor less of one. I understand it is impossible to live somewhere for a week and truly leave no trace but the trace as a whole would be more if "Tread Lightly" was the motto instead.
Second I see you punching holes in your own opinions throughout this whole thread, First you say you were shot at Burning Man then later say you heard gunshots and got scared by a camper in the distance and you were camped on a hill. If you really believe "Pave the Playa" is a good idea then your full of shit in the first place by saying you want to save a ecosystem by paving it. You say over and over again that the amount of rain in the year makes the playa hard or soft, How does the amount of people that show up affect the rainfall that packs the playa?
Yes you say your main part of the appeal is that they increased the number over their allotment by 10,900 tickets but all your case bases around is the dust that, as you've stated, has to do more with the amount of rainfall than the people in the previous year.
The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair.
User avatar
MikeGyver
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2011 3:23 pm
Location: San Diego, California
Burning Since: 2011
Camp Name: Barbie Death Camp

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby AngelGrrrl » Sun Jul 29, 2012 12:34 pm

Why not raise the cap to accommodate everyone instead of limiting tickets and selling out. Won't the extra income from extra ticket sales support building the city out a few more streets -- do what needs to be done aka 'leave no trace' and eliminate the who gets to attend, or not, system.

Calling all biologists, scholarly environmentalists and the well-informed intelligentsia with accurate empirical stats: What is the harm of dunes in the desert. Are there plants or creeks or anything at BRC that burners destroy by being there. BLM and the fed gov benefit BIG time from our lil $oiree.

Educate me, pah-leese.

And ... what happened to the idea of having major concerts at BM to attract more attendees and provide more value. Thought I read that last year in a survey.

$ky-diving in sprinkling fur, glitter & gummy glo worms seems a viable option :) oops, i did it again ... left a foot print
viral on vimeo, youtube, al jazeera
AngelGrrrl
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:46 pm
Burning Since: 2004

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby gyre » Sun Jul 29, 2012 1:20 pm

I test people at greeter's gate to see if they can come in.

Maybe a really low bar should be set and enforced at the main gate?
It would probably fix any population issues right there.

Some virgins have really good answers, by the way.
User avatar
gyre
 
Posts: 15346
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: ΦάÏ

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby theCryptofishist » Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:01 pm

Hm. Apparently the density of the brine shrimp in the city area is half of what it is elsewhere on the playa.
And then there's the oil drips of all those cars (some of them oldish) onto the playa.
And much of the limitation of the population is connected to the capacity of 447 anyway.
Anyway, this is the FEA, so you can read about it yourself.
Simon's real sig line?

Embrace the Sock

Winners never quilt, quilters never win...
User avatar
theCryptofishist
 
Posts: 37469
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:28 am
Location: In Exile
Burning Since: 2017

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby cxbrx » Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:04 am

@Mrptatomoto: I guess we disagree about "Leave No Trace" vs "Tread Lightly". I prefer to be honest about the results of my activities, but I see your point about aspiring to being better. "Pave the Playa" is a joke, much like Jonathan's Swift "A Modest Proposal" is about eating children to solve problems in Ireland. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal. Paving the playa is also a strawman or Reductio ad absurdum. However, it is useful to discuss possibly solutions. As mentioned elsewhere, there are problems with paving the playa, but perhaps preparing the playa surface in some manner could help. The amount of rainfall seems to be correlated to how well the Black Rock Desert playa heals. Other nearby playas don't have dunes like this. My appeal has three points, the dunes are the third point. The website is about the dunes.

@ranger magnum: Amen!

@portaplaya: As someone who has studied geology, I agree that dunes are part of a natural progression. I feel that the dust from Burning Man is greatly accelerating the process though. Lake Lahontan disappeared 9,000 years ago, it is sad to see the playa drastically change in 12 years. I'm not sure if the BLM would offer a portion of the playa for sale at this point, but say they would and the LLC bought some acreage. The dunes problem would continue. Some permitting for a public event would probably be necessary (law enforcement, ambulance, fire etc.) I believe that limiting the number of attendees is only a matter of time. The dust storms are getting worse, and getting people on and off the playa takes more time. My opinion is that the rule was 50k, and the BLM allege that the LLC violated that rule. Will the LLC stick with 75k? My appeal discusses how the limit was set in a letter to 50,000, then negotiated upward to an average of 50k per day and then the BLM allege that the number was 53k+ (see the appeal for details). The BLM has not ever done an annual performance evaluation. There has been no formal analysis of the number of attendees since (I believe) 2008. The BLM has been taking the LLC's word on the count, or at least I have not seen any documents since 2008 that include any effort in counting the attendees. About probation: Burning Man is appealing the BLM's effort to put Burning Man on probation, so it is not a done deal. However, how come Burning Man did not announce this? Also, how come to my knowledge, Burning Man has never released attendee figures? How come the LLC and BLM did not respond to the two other points in the appeal?

@plantmandan: I'm not filing a lawsuit, it is an appeal, in the same administrative court where the LLC is appealing the BLM's probation effort. Thanks for asking, but I'm not going this year, I'll probably go again some time in the future.

@thisisthatwhichis: I've been communicating with the BLM about the dunes for a few years. I started to realize that the BLM was not completing the permit process in December of 2011. The feedback provided by the BLM in 2009 and 2010 was about cleaning the playa and did not include feedback other stipulations like population. At this point, because the appeals process is so slow, I'm not sure if anything will happen. If the appeals process was faster, or I had applied for a 30 day stay, then I expect that the population would have been kept at 50k and Burning Man would not have released the recent set of tickets. The reason not to wait is because it is in appropriate to reward a vendor who violated the first stipulation in the permit with a 20% increase. Yes, the timing is unfortunate. The LLC should have gotten or followed better advice about how to manage a sell out event. If Burning Man had stuck with the 50k limit, I would not have appealed.

Gotta go . . .
cxbrx
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:20 pm
Burning Since: 1995

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby ygmir » Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:06 am

cxbrx wrote:@Mrptatomoto: I guess we disagree about "Leave No Trace" vs "Tread Lightly". I prefer to be honest about the results of my activities, but I see your point about aspiring to being better. "Pave the Playa" is a joke, much like Jonathan's Swift "A Modest Proposal" is about eating children to solve problems in Ireland. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal. Paving the playa is also a strawman or Reductio ad absurdum. However, it is useful to discuss possibly solutions. As mentioned elsewhere, there are problems with paving the playa, but perhaps preparing the playa surface in some manner could help. The amount of rainfall seems to be correlated to how well the Black Rock Desert playa heals. Other nearby playas don't have dunes like this. My appeal has three points, the dunes are the third point. The website is about the dunes.

@ranger magnum: Amen!

@portaplaya: As someone who has studied geology, I agree that dunes are part of a natural progression. I feel that the dust from Burning Man is greatly accelerating the process though. Lake Lahontan disappeared 9,000 years ago, it is sad to see the playa drastically change in 12 years. I'm not sure if the BLM would offer a portion of the playa for sale at this point, but say they would and the LLC bought some acreage. The dunes problem would continue. Some permitting for a public event would probably be necessary (law enforcement, ambulance, fire etc.) I believe that limiting the number of attendees is only a matter of time. The dust storms are getting worse, and getting people on and off the playa takes more time. My opinion is that the rule was 50k, and the BLM allege that the LLC violated that rule. Will the LLC stick with 75k? My appeal discusses how the limit was set in a letter to 50,000, then negotiated upward to an average of 50k per day and then the BLM allege that the number was 53k+ (see the appeal for details). The BLM has not ever done an annual performance evaluation. There has been no formal analysis of the number of attendees since (I believe) 2008. The BLM has been taking the LLC's word on the count, or at least I have not seen any documents since 2008 that include any effort in counting the attendees. About probation: Burning Man is appealing the BLM's effort to put Burning Man on probation, so it is not a done deal. However, how come Burning Man did not announce this? Also, how come to my knowledge, Burning Man has never released attendee figures? How come the LLC and BLM did not respond to the two other points in the appeal?

@plantmandan: I'm not filing a lawsuit, it is an appeal, in the same administrative court where the LLC is appealing the BLM's probation effort. Thanks for asking, but I'm not going this year, I'll probably go again some time in the future.

@thisisthatwhichis: I've been communicating with the BLM about the dunes for a few years. I started to realize that the BLM was not completing the permit process in December of 2011. The feedback provided by the BLM in 2009 and 2010 was about cleaning the playa and did not include feedback other stipulations like population. At this point, because the appeals process is so slow, I'm not sure if anything will happen. If the appeals process was faster, or I had applied for a 30 day stay, then I expect that the population would have been kept at 50k and Burning Man would not have released the recent set of tickets. The reason not to wait is because it is in appropriate to reward a vendor who violated the first stipulation in the permit with a 20% increase. Yes, the timing is unfortunate. The LLC should have gotten or followed better advice about how to manage a sell out event. If Burning Man had stuck with the 50k limit, I would not have appealed.

Gotta go . . .


yay......and please, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out........go far, go fast.
YGMIR

Unabashed Nordic
Pagan
User avatar
ygmir
 
Posts: 25998
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:36 pm
Location: nevada county
Burning Since: 2017
Camp Name: qqqq

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby Foxfur » Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:54 am

:lol: :lol: :lol:
He's a mystery wrapped in a riddle, inside an enigma, painted in hot pants. - Savannah
Propane ToysImage
How to do it wrong:
Image
User avatar
Foxfur
 
Posts: 2332
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 6:43 am
Location: Banks, Oregon
Burning Since: 2011
Camp Name: 404 Village Not Found

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby Sham » Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:27 am

I think it's wonderful that more tax payers are getting to utilize this beautiful desert known as Black Rock, instead of keeping it just for locals to occasionally drive out for their personal pleasure. The difference between 50,000 and 60,000 is virtually ZERO when it comes to impact on the surface.
I say, the more the merrier!
User avatar
Sham
Moderator
 
Posts: 6274
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 2:10 am
Location: The hidden mythical place.....

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby lemur » Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:33 am

is it too early for the TOP ASSHAT OF 2012 BURNING MAN ?!
Don't link to anything here!
User avatar
lemur
 
Posts: 3599
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:07 pm
Location: Madagascar
Camp Name: Plug N Play Camp

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby Dr. Pyro » Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:06 am

I agree with Sham. Once you hit the point of diminishing returns (my best guesstimate was when the population passed 35,000), the increase in population would have a negligible effect on the playa surface. That doesn't help with entry and exodus of course, but that's not the arugment.
User avatar
Dr. Pyro
 
Posts: 3675
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:11 am
Location: Newcastle, CA
Burning Since: 1999
Camp Name: Barbie Death Camp & Wine Bistro

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby oneeyeddick » Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:59 am

What about the added benefits of population increase, like all the extra beer cans that Recycle Camp gets to smash?
We have an obligation to make space for everyone, we have no obligation to make that space pleasant.
User avatar
oneeyeddick
 
Posts: 5588
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:08 pm
Location: Probably in your pants
Burning Since: 1996

Re: Appeal filed against the raised population cap of 60,900

Postby Lassen Forge » Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:49 am

oneeyeddick wrote:What about the added benefits of population increase, like all the extra beer cans that Recycle Camp gets to smash?


And the corresponding influx of revenue to the locals of Fernley, Nixon, Wadsworth, Gerlach, and both the Jackrabbits still living in Empire... prolly even some overflow to Vya and Lovelock... Hell, look at the cash that BRC brings into the Reno area.

I bet THEY'RE not pissed at BLM. Maybe it will keep enough revenue flowing into NDoT and Washoe/Pershing County to keep 447/34/446 well maintained. MAYBE even ad a 3rd (reversable) lane to 447... Hell, maybe even an overflow of funds to improve Jungo/S.V./Roads... (Now THAT would f'n rock)


ygmir wrote:
cxbrx wrote:Gotta go . . .


yay......and please, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out........go far, go fast.


***---swoon---***
User avatar
Lassen Forge
Moderator
 
Posts: 5322
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 10:35 pm
Location: Where it's always... Wednesday. Don't lose your head over it.

PreviousNext

Return to 2012 Tickets Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron