[sac-board] Re: Marathon biz
- From: AJ Crayon <acrayon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: sac-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:18:15 -0700
I don't think Ray would particularly care about receiving any monetary
remuneration because he is permitting us to cross property to get to the
site free gratis. The site isn't his property in the first place we
just use the road on the north side of the property.
It is situations like this discussion that take more time than the
normal planning. As I've made clear, at least I hope it is clear, I
don't want the marathon to be in the planning stages all year long.
As far as rules are concerned if we wanted them they should have been
posted on the web site along with all the other information. I believe
it toooo late for this kind of rule changing as it would be difficult to
get in touch with those who may attend before the marathon. I don't
think it reasonable to have someone (not me) to be on the lookout for
vendors as they arrive and then tell them what the rules are that you
(not me) have decided on.
I'm willing to accept the responsability for getting into this position,
but I don't see this as a way out. At least not this year. Next year,
yes! We should devote a bored meeting to this topic, even if it is a
special one to consider only this topic. And, yes, this smacks as
having planning meetings between marathons; something which we all want
to avoid.
Clear skies,
aj
Thad Robosson wrote:
>>All,
>>
>>I would wonder if the person who kindly donated the use of the land would
>>care that someone was using the same land to sell goods. This sounds like
>>
>>
>it
>
>
>>could blossom into a large problem. I don't think the issue would be as
>>greatif we were on "public" land, but I bet the forest service has rules
>>against these kind of things without permits also.
>>
>>Marshall Dailey
>>
>>
>
>
>Great point! Is anyone able to give the Farnsworths a call and ask their
>position? I wonder if
>they'd mind getting a little bit out of it in way of "rent" for vendors. I
>think that it'd be
>a nice little "out"; that is, to ask vendors to pay rent because that's what
>the landowner asks for. (We could just
>add a little on top for SAC's involvment.)
>
>Rick and I have talked of this in the past, and we agreed that the MM has
>potential to become one of the
>BIG events. But more importantly is who runs and organizes it, and I won't
>fault AJ for any apsect regarding the MM. Lord knows I wouldn't have the
>energy to organize this event, much less grow it any. However,
>it doesn't mean that we couldn't do something collectively to this effect,
>if it becomes our collective desire to do so. Obviously, much discussion
>needs to happen regarding this, but that can happen later. The most
>important thing right now is to establish some quick rules about vendors,
>and I think a call to the Farnsworths is the absolute first thing to do.
>
>At any rate, let's keep chatting about this, and get some ideas. I'll start
>compiling all the emails and try
>to keep a list of the good/bad points.
>
>Thad
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
