Tourism Is Very Serious Business

by Roger Alink, Founder of Wildlife West Nature Park

Tourism is a very serious business!

Many people including local government leaders do not understand the importance of tourism to their community’s overall economic well being.  People who are considering moving a business to a new community often start with a visit to a local tourism attraction. To lose a tourism industry is to lose the basis for your economic development.  These quotes are from Dr. Peter E. Tarlow, world tourism consultant.

New Mexico tourism is a 6.1 billion dollar impact to the economy annually.  It is the second largest industry behind the government.  It is a clean industry with very little impact on the infrastructure because tourists spend money and leave to go home afterwards.

Edgewood has two very important tourist attractions with SASS Founders Ranch and Wildlife West Nature Park.  People from all over the world and all over the country come to Edgewood to visit and celebrate the many events held at these two locations. The documented economic impact of these two attractions is in the millions of dollars with motels, restaurants, retailers, fuel providers, auto repair, and fees for various services all adding to the gross receipts that directly benefit all area residents. This is important new revenue that doesn’t come from local taxpayers.  It is critical that all community residents and leaders understand and support these events and attractions.

7 Responses “Tourism Is Very Serious Business”

  1. Glenn Felton says:

    A few issues with Roger’s formulation John: 1) the events may not have broad enough appeal as the demographic of Edgewood changes. Western themes and strictly acoustic music, largely bluegrass, don’t appeal to everyone and urging everyone to go out of civic duty seems unrealistic; 2) I don’t doubt that these events have positive impact but documented impact is precisely what’s been lacking. Documentation might actually make it possible to have the assistance of public funding if the benefit clearly equals or exceeds the investment, in dollars and cents. That was the sticking point when this was debated in Council; 3) the benefits Mr. Alink describes may be painted just a little too “broad brush.” It’s hard to see for example that in a town with no motel, we all benefit from motel occupancy. To say that lodgers tax paid in Albuquerque or Moriarty directly benefits Edgewood citizens is a tough case to make. It’s undoubtedly true that motels in nearby towns DO indirectly benefit us. Just really hard to document. The ultimate problem is, and I’m not suggesting that this has to do with anyone personally, if people think you’re stretching the truth in one area, they tend not to believe a lot of other things you have to say either.

    • Glenn, I’ll leave it to Roger to cover the broader issues here, but a few thoughts:

      1) There are a variety of factors that affect attendance. I myself was unable to attend this year due to conflicting commitments. The change in date could have been a problem for some, although I haven’t seen attendance numbers yet. As for the selection of music, this has been and should always be under the Park’s scrutiny. I’ll note that none of this year’s headliners were traditional bluegrass bands, and in recent years there have been Celtic bands, an African-style marimba orchestra, and other nontraditional, albeit mostly acoustic, acts. In short, the festival has been evolving and will likely continue to do so. The challenge is to make sure that people know it. At any rate, Roger didn’t urge people to attend the event, but to support it, which can mean any number of things in addition to attendance.
      2) I’ll lead off with the fact that I received a substantial amount of correspondence from the Town on this subject in response to an NMIPRA request – and then received additional correspondence from other sources that was somehow omitted from the response. The “documentation” requested during the prior discussions would have done little to demonstrate the economic benefits of the event, and seemed more focused on knowing where the Park’s money was coming from and who was getting complimentary tickets. Wildlife West has no means of producing the documentation to which you seem to refer here. To some extent, the Town might be able to analyze gross receipts tax and “hold harmless” data to get an idea, but chose not to do so during the Council’s deliberations.

      You appear to be proposing a litmus test for providing assistance: that the benefit should be equal to or greater than the amount of the assistance. It is not clear that such a litmus test is appropriate, as it ignores other potential benefits that are not financial in nature. Many towns hold fireworks displays, for example, that do not produce any direct revenue. There’s a great big lawn with a great big field building just north of Edgewood Elementary, financed in part by the Town at a time when the school-age population was flat or declining, that will never produce any revenue for the Town. Again noting that I’ve reviewed substantial correspondence on the subject: I found it impossible to avoid conclusion that the funding for the festival was discontinued because key individuals wanted it discontinued, and found an excuse to do so. This is an issue on which you and I are unlikely to agree – but here’s a proposal: the Town should calculate the direct and indirect economic benefits of the event, and contribute one dollar less to supporting it.

      3) It is an unfortunate trend in the modern American zeitgeist to focus on things that are proximate and immediate and ignore the broader impacts of actions, events, etc. Edgewood’s government, in particular, seems to be increasingly unconcerned with the world outside, but adjacent to, its borders. Lodger’s tax paid in Moriarty may not go directly into Edgewood’s coffers – but people driving back and forth between the event and Edgewood may be purchasing gas, groceries, clothing, accessories, and meals in Edgewood. And money that flows into the State coffers eventually – at least in theory – benefits all of us. Personally, I am tired of the me-first attitude that has come to pervade nearly all discussions of public issues, and think we should all concern ourselves not only with our own interests, but with the well-being of our neighbors and fellow citizens. Then again, I don’t live in Edgewood, so I don’t really have a vote there where such issues are concerned.

      • Glenn Felton says:

        I am aware that the event has sought to expand its musical horizons a bit although I don’t know how well that’s being received. I don’t go. My tastes lean more toward rock and jazz, and electric surf which is the specialty of the band I play in. OK, so let’s be clear about what “support” means. If it’s not attendance then what is it? Is Roger’s statement a plea for public funding? Is it some third thing, maybe to tell others about it, promote it informally?

        I don’t think anyone was against the event John. The interpretation of the NM Constitution as it applied to the event came from the towns attorney and the council chose to heed his warning. There was no constructing the legal opinion we wanted to hear as some have asserted. In the 15 years I have lived in Edgewood I have always been distressed by the tendency of some folks to leap qucikly to conclusions like this and assume the worst about people they don’t agree with. It’s a mean-spirited tone that underlies a lot of our discussions and is probably partly responsible for things not getting done.

        The Music Festival came up as a budget proposal, as it had in years past, and was considered on its merits. You are correct in asserting that other issues related to financing were part of the discussion, in particular the question of whether we were financing an event or supporting the park. The two concerns are interwoven and our attorney offered calculating the benefit in dollars and cents, your “litmus test,” as a way out of the dilemma. It may be that no one has the resources to do that. I would agree with you that you don’t have to assert millions in benefit to make a case for $25,000 of public funding. As you suggest, just look at whether or not there is $25,001 of benefit. I disgaree that the town should do that. That responsibility falls to the business making the proposal or you’re back to square one. How many other private businesses should the town calculate benefit for in support of their requests? Maybe that’s something a Chamber of Commerce should be doing to support exisiting businesses and promote community events, something most chambers do. I guess I see public events like fireworks displays as a little different because there is no question of the event being vital to the survival of a particular business. You may recall emotional pleas during the council debate, Chuck Ring was one of them, that could not separate the park from the event. Roger himself came in and didn’t say “the event is struggling and needs your help.” He said “the park is struggling and needs your help.” That’s always been the core of the problem.

        I totally agree with your third point, John, and said so in my initial comment. I’m sure we derive benefit from what happens regionally. We also make decisions that threaten the region with negative impacts. Campbell Ranch is the most obvious example. I tried to represent that attitude in the work I did on council. And I was often criticized for it by Chuck, Rita Loy Simmons, and Howard Calkins, and others who espoused more an “Edgewood first” attitude.

        • Well, I won’t put words in Roger’s mouth on what he meant by support; he can address that directly if he wishes. It could easily involve any or all the possible actions you mentioned.

          I agree that there is a rather pronounced tendency for people to leap too quickly to sinister conclusions, and that this does it does result in a counterproductive and overly negative tone in discussions of local issues. Again, however, I’ve reviewed a substantial amount of correspondence suggesting that this was more about policy and less about legality (this expressed in one of Mayor Stearley’s early e-mails on the subject). One e-mail by Brad Hill expressed exasperation with this aspect of the situation. Had the Council specifically directed the attorney to come up with a strategy for supporting the event legally, I have every confidence that he could have come up with a reasonable proposal to do so, and then it would have been up to Wildlife West to accept or reject the proposal. There appears to be no evidence that the Council provided such direction, however.

          I agree that, if the Town is to find a way to support the event, it will most likely be necessary to separate the support from the event from support for the park. That is, unfortunately, not what happened. I do take issue with your continued characterization of Wildlife West as a “business,” though; the park is operated by a 501(c)(3) charitable organization and is not a “business” in the traditional sense. The data necessary for the analysis you suggest would have to come from the Town. Further, it is not clear whether a proper statistical analysis could be done because conditions are neither uniform nor homogeneous: factors including the fact that the event has at some times, but not at others, been concurrently scheduled with other events, and the commercial development patterns of the area, would likely garble the statistics to the point that they would either underestimate or overestimate the financial impact of the festival.

          As for the role of the Council at the time: In the interest of fairness it should perhaps be noted that the prior Council and administration should have approved and did not approve the funding prior to leaving office; realistically, that should probably have been done in the December time frame. Similarly, the current Council has made no apparent effort toward restoring the funding, despite the very strong opinions on the subject that led to the last election’s results. This is probably something that people may wish to keep in mind when the next election comes around.

          We agree on Edgewood’s position in the regional community: I can’t help but think that Edgewood is well on the way to becoming a mini-Santa Fe with respect to considering the interests of other parts of the region. It is unfortunate and inappropriate, especially given that people who shop in Edgewood but live outside the Town boundaries contribute no less financially to the Town than its residents. Perhaps that is something that people should consider when they decide where to shop.

  2. Glenn Felton says:

    You’re right John, business may be the wrong word. My apologies. “Organization” may be a better term.

    I must tell you that I cringed in my seat in council when people got up to speak in support of the park in the context of a discussion about the festival. It made it much harder to find a legally defensible position. It would have been imprudent to approve public funding and then have to defend a legal challenge on the matter, and I believe that was a very real possibility. It would also have been inappropriate for us to tell our attorney what outcome we desired and ask for a legal opinion to fit, the same as the converse would have been wrong.

    Honestly, John, I think this is an event that started as a handshake agreement bewteen a small group of interested parties and the town outgrew arrangements of that kind. Think of what’s going on now as growing pains.

    Three things that may help Wildlife West in future negotiations for the event: 1) don’t make assumptions about who your friends and enemies are and don’t threaten people. I’ll show you the e-mail threats of legal action against me for expressing my position in the newspaper if you would care to see them. I don’t know why the festival doesn’t ask me for pies for their pie auction. They always did and I will gladly do it for them every year if I’m in town and have time. Things like that send a message and when your words and actions don’t match, people will judge you by your actions. I continue to “talk up” the event, most recently to Stephanie Bettman and Luke Halpin. They are amazing musicians I met through my daughters involvement in the Albuquerque Youth Symphony. I hope they have an opportunity to play the festival

    2) The festival would be well served by having the proposal detail facilities and administrative costs. Those things were peppered throughout the proposal for the festival and it may be clearer if they’re treated separately. It’s been a few years but I’ll see if I can come up with a couple of specific examples if necessary

    3) they need to learn how to accurately depict the finances of the event, both revenue and expense, and characterize the revenue that goes toward it as a program cost. Ticket sales is revenue that supports the event. Comp tickets are a cost. Pretty simple, really. It’s typical for programs in parts of DHHS and DOD to detail both the federal and non-federal share that goes toward making the program happen. Proposals don’t refuse to show you the non-federal share. Try it. You won’t get the grant.

    Interesting observation about Edgewood and Santa Fe.

  3. Glenn Felton says:

    Hey John, one other thought. Are they still able to draw down a few thousand dollars from the town for advertising? I recall that although the law technically pertains to lodgers tax, our attorney thought doing the same with gross receipts would probably not be challenged.

  4. I’m not sure; I’m meeting with them today and will check. Last I had heard, nothing was budgeted for that purpose this year.

Let us talk about
Name and Mail are required
Join the discuss

I'm not a robot (enter numbers) *