Advertisement
Here’s the latest Dark Skies – The Singularity Event news of the week! Feel free to forward or share.
As you may have heard, we are now into an appeal situation with the BLM. This means that in about 2.5 years we will have an answer on weather or not we have to pay them over $36,000 in fees to produce this May Dark Skies – The Singularity Event. In the meantime we have applied for a ‘stay’ to the permitting fees in order to not have to give them this money up front. As you can imagine, giving BLM $36,000 right now would not be a good thing for us or for the event. Particularly in light of the fact that our total gross budget will be somewhere around $27k. So we applied for the stay. There is a very high likelihood of us winning this appeal; therefore we anticipate a high likelihood of being granted the stay by the Department of the Interior Land Board or Appeals based in Sacramento. As usual, we want you to know what is going on here. So here’s what’s going on!
The stay *could* take as much as 45 days to get, it will probably however take more like a couple of weeks. Either way Dark Skies – The Singularity Event is ON and we are proceeding forward for a May 17 lift off on Roach Lake! Ticket sakes have been brisk and we are well on our way to matching last years numbers of just over 600 people.
In other news: Tickets go up to $75 in ONE WEEK on April 2nd.
In town tickets have gone on sale at the CAC at Holesum lofts tinyurl.com/ysowey
231 W Charleston Blvd Suite 110
In town tickets are being sold at a $5 discount under the online price. They are currently $45 at the CAC and they will be $70 starting on the 2’nd of April.
Online tickets can always be purchased off of our website
darkskies.vegasartists.com
Here is the copy of our appeal:
Appeal filed on behalf of The Dark Skies Arts Festival – The Singularity Event
BLM SRP NV-050-07-040
We believe that the Cost Recovery Estimate for this event is in error and is arbitrary and capricious. We are appealing the cost estimate and requesting a stay of the implementation of the cost estimate on this permit. The relief requested is that the cost estimate for previous events by this applicant be applied and the event be allowed to proceed as scheduled. The reasons for the appeal are listed below.
1. The BLM estimate for Law Enforcement for this event is far in excess of the estimates and charges for similar events in Nevada and surrounding states on BLM administered lands. The BLM’s standard for an ‘all ages family event’ like this event, is one law enforcement officer per 1000 participants. This type of event includes no real risk of resource damage, low risk of unlawful activity, low risk of injury to participants, and participation by families including all ages. The ratio for this event for this year, based on estimated participation, is 1/90, more that eleven times the typical ratio. No justification or rationale for the enormous increase in required law enforcement has been provided. There have been no significant law enforcement incidents or requirements over the past several years at this event, permitted to the same organization, and no changes have been identified or anticipated.
2. The cost estimate for event monitoring is not reasonable based on the history of this event over several years. The estimate should logically be based on the history of past events permitted to the same organization in the same location in terms of problems during the event and past compliance history. This event and its organizers have only one documented incident and it was an isolated minor incident involving fireworks. Again, no rationale or justification has been provided by the BLM or in any documentation that has been made available. The experience with this event should be documented in “after incident reports”, required by the agencies Law Enforcement guidelines, but none have been completed or made available. The recreation permit handbook also requires permit evaluations and again none have been completed or made available.
3. There appears to be a negative attitude toward this event that has been communicated to us and others based on personal communication and second hand information. This has caused this event to be treated differently than any other similar events in Nevada. We have been told that some in the Las Vegas BLM office have said they do not want this legal and respected event to take place on public lands administered by the Las Vegas Field Office. This is clearly affecting the event adversely and is manifested in the unprecedented increase in the cost estimate. The cost estimate was not provided timely or in compliance with the handbook, preventing resolution in time for planning the event.
4. The response to the application, cost estimate, and lack of cooperation in meetings with the agency have been arbitrary and capricious in that no reasonable explanation for the changes has been provided and the timing will cause the event to be canceled after substantial planning and investment has already taken place.
5. This event has a history of just one stipulation violation in four previous events on the same site, which was minor, promptly corrected, and not repeated. It involved the illegal use of legal fireworks. This one incident would not justify requiring three observers as part of our cost recovery estimate or stipulations. Again, it is evidence of an arbitrary and capricious decision.
6. We have complained in writing to BLM about problems with agency LE staff on two previous occasions. Those complaints went unanswered and ignored and it appears they may have triggered the negative attitude toward the event and contributed to the arbitrary and capricious current decision.
7. BLM is attempting to charge the event an amount greater than the total gross budget of our event. BLM was aware of the budget for the event after the application was submitted and prior to the revised cost estimate. Because we were told everything was proceeding as in previous years we proceeded to plan the event and arrange financing and established the budget. Due to the late date of the revised estimate and the BLM not following its own guidelines, the event will be precluded from proceeding. This action violates our right to due process under BLM’s guidelines. It negates BLM’s mandate to provide for environmentally sound, lawful uses while preserving our public lands for public use. In short, we believe BLM is attempting to regulate us out of existence and exclude us while allowing other events, which they apparently like, to occur. This affects us adversely and will cause harm to the organizers and all participants. Because it is arbitrary and capricious we request that implementing the cost estimated be stayed and the event should be to allow to proceed using the cost estimate for the previous, successful and lawful event.
8. That in our four events held on this site, and contrary to BLM’s own internal regulations, no After Action Reports have been filed for any of our events, and that therefore, this shows neither precedent nor reason for our user fees being increased for event number 5 by a factor of over 1600%. This affects us adversely and therefore a stay should be granted to allow the permitting to proceed.
9. We did not request a hard closure on Roach Lake, and certainly not one the size proposed by BLM. No reasonable explanation has been provided for the change, especially in light of the lack of any documented problems with previous events by the same organizer in the same location. Instead we have asked repeatedly for a multi use permit or exclusive use permit. We have no problem with other users of Roach Lake and we have never had any problems with the perimeter, area security or gate crashers in four events on this site. There is no danger to the general public or to event participants by not having a hard closure of our site. It appears that the huge increase in cost estimate and associated fees are directly related to BLM’s proposed hard closure.
10. The permit application was submitted in mid November of 2006. BLM had 30 days to get us the cost recovery estimate. In mid December 2006 we received a phone call telling us “everything looks good with your application” to which we replied “great we are going to begin selling tickets in two weeks (beginning of January)” the reply was “you are good to go”. This information was also posted on our website which BLM has visited. We must also assume that BLM is on our mailing list on Yahoo groups where we frequently make public announcements regarding the event. Ticket sales have been ongoing since January. In mid February 2007, three months after the permit application was submitted, we received the cost recovery estimate. We were blindsided by the very late and contradictory notice and are now faced with substantial harm if we can not pay the fees and could not hold the event and would have to refund tickets and suffer a loss of all expenditures to date. We believe that BLM violated its own regulations by these actions in not getting us the cost recovery estimate in a timely manner. This affects us adversely and therefore a stay should be granted to allow the permitting to proceed. It is also arbitrary and capricious and no reasonable explanation has been documented.
11. If the cost estimate and associated fees are left in place the only solution for the organizers is to hold a much larger event to benefit from economies of scale. We have clearly indicated to BLM that we do no want to become much larger. BLM has told us repeatedly that they don’t want to see ‘thousands of people’ on Roach Lake, yet that is exactly the situation they are creating by charging us around $60 per person to go camping and enjoy group activities. We are being forced to grow at a much faster rate than our infrastructure or business plan will allow. This affects us extremely adversely and therefore a stay should be granted to allow the permitting to proceed.
12. That the Closure area that BLM is requiring is over 400 times larger than the closure for Burningman on a per capita basis. Burningman is a similar event that we are compared to by BLM although there are significant differences as well. This event involves primarily local participants, already familiar with the desert environment, and requires much less set up and clean up. Using the Burningman closure for comparison, the closure for this event should be approximately 77 acres, not 35 square miles. This huge closure area is completely unworkable for an event of this size. We see no reason that the requirements for Burningman, a long standing successful event, also held on a dry lake bed, should not be extrapolated and applied to this event. That event is also held in Nevada and comes under the jurisdiction of the BLM’s Nevada state office, which has established standards and procedures for recreation permits. Precedent has been set for these types of events and again no reasonable rationale or explanation for the variance has been provided. We can only assume that this huge closure is directly related to our vastly increased costs, both of which we assert are arbitrary and capricious. This affects us adversely and therefore a stay should be granted to allow the permitting to proceed.
We are requesting additional time to request and produce additional documentation in support of these points within 30 days from the date of this appeal and stay application. It is our intent to produce sustainable and ethical family oriented art themed events this year and in the future. Our flawless record should be the basis for the cost estimate and is required under the regulations and is reiterated in BLM’s Recreation Permit Handbook. We have attempted to meet with BLM several times and have met twice to discuss the issue. We did not receive any reasonable explanation for the change nor willingness to find a workable solution. We regret being forced into the appeal process but have concluded we have no other realistic option to proceed with our permit process and hold the schedule event. We respect BLM employees, managers, and their responsibilities but can only conclude mistakes have been made in processing and administering our event.
Below we are also addressing the four points for granting a stay.
(i) The relative harm to the parties if the stay is granted or denied. There would be no harm to other parties if the stay is granted, particularly in light of the compliance record for this event in the past. The event organizers and participants would be irreparably harmed if the stay is not granted as they would not be able to hold and participate in the planned event and all committed costs, estimated to be $5,000 -$10,000 would be lost.
(ii) The likelihood of the appellant’s success on the merits. BLM violated its own guidelines, regulations, handbook, and established precedent in processing the permit and therefore there is a very high likelihood that we will prevail in this appeal on the merits.
(iii) The likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm if the stay is not granted. If the stay is not granted, the event will almost certainly be cancelled and can not be replaced. Because many of the anticipated participants will likely go ahead and come to an un-permitted, unorganized event, there is a likelihood of resource impacts and law enforcement requirements. If that occurs, the harm is also both immediate and irreparable and can not be recovered. If the stay is not granted, the organizer could not pay the fees and the event would not be permitted, both immediate and irreparable.
(iv) Whether the public interest favors granting the stay: the public interest is served by granting the stay in that some 500-700 members of the public would be prevented from participating in a lawful and permitted event which has been held several times in the past. The public interest is served if BLM is stayed from implementing an arbitrary and capricious decision which adversely affects so many lawful and well behaved public land users.
Sincerely,
******************************************
That's it! Questions? Comments? Hate mail? Words of gushing praise for all of our wonderful volunteers? Got a better way to do this?
Hit us on the event's official newsgroup which is here
groups.yahoo.com/group/DAR..._LASVEGAS/
Much love and respect, C.
As you may have heard, we are now into an appeal situation with the BLM. This means that in about 2.5 years we will have an answer on weather or not we have to pay them over $36,000 in fees to produce this May Dark Skies – The Singularity Event. In the meantime we have applied for a ‘stay’ to the permitting fees in order to not have to give them this money up front. As you can imagine, giving BLM $36,000 right now would not be a good thing for us or for the event. Particularly in light of the fact that our total gross budget will be somewhere around $27k. So we applied for the stay. There is a very high likelihood of us winning this appeal; therefore we anticipate a high likelihood of being granted the stay by the Department of the Interior Land Board or Appeals based in Sacramento. As usual, we want you to know what is going on here. So here’s what’s going on!
The stay *could* take as much as 45 days to get, it will probably however take more like a couple of weeks. Either way Dark Skies – The Singularity Event is ON and we are proceeding forward for a May 17 lift off on Roach Lake! Ticket sakes have been brisk and we are well on our way to matching last years numbers of just over 600 people.
In other news: Tickets go up to $75 in ONE WEEK on April 2nd.
In town tickets have gone on sale at the CAC at Holesum lofts tinyurl.com/ysowey
231 W Charleston Blvd Suite 110
In town tickets are being sold at a $5 discount under the online price. They are currently $45 at the CAC and they will be $70 starting on the 2’nd of April.
Online tickets can always be purchased off of our website
darkskies.vegasartists.com
Here is the copy of our appeal:
Appeal filed on behalf of The Dark Skies Arts Festival – The Singularity Event
BLM SRP NV-050-07-040
We believe that the Cost Recovery Estimate for this event is in error and is arbitrary and capricious. We are appealing the cost estimate and requesting a stay of the implementation of the cost estimate on this permit. The relief requested is that the cost estimate for previous events by this applicant be applied and the event be allowed to proceed as scheduled. The reasons for the appeal are listed below.
1. The BLM estimate for Law Enforcement for this event is far in excess of the estimates and charges for similar events in Nevada and surrounding states on BLM administered lands. The BLM’s standard for an ‘all ages family event’ like this event, is one law enforcement officer per 1000 participants. This type of event includes no real risk of resource damage, low risk of unlawful activity, low risk of injury to participants, and participation by families including all ages. The ratio for this event for this year, based on estimated participation, is 1/90, more that eleven times the typical ratio. No justification or rationale for the enormous increase in required law enforcement has been provided. There have been no significant law enforcement incidents or requirements over the past several years at this event, permitted to the same organization, and no changes have been identified or anticipated.
2. The cost estimate for event monitoring is not reasonable based on the history of this event over several years. The estimate should logically be based on the history of past events permitted to the same organization in the same location in terms of problems during the event and past compliance history. This event and its organizers have only one documented incident and it was an isolated minor incident involving fireworks. Again, no rationale or justification has been provided by the BLM or in any documentation that has been made available. The experience with this event should be documented in “after incident reports”, required by the agencies Law Enforcement guidelines, but none have been completed or made available. The recreation permit handbook also requires permit evaluations and again none have been completed or made available.
3. There appears to be a negative attitude toward this event that has been communicated to us and others based on personal communication and second hand information. This has caused this event to be treated differently than any other similar events in Nevada. We have been told that some in the Las Vegas BLM office have said they do not want this legal and respected event to take place on public lands administered by the Las Vegas Field Office. This is clearly affecting the event adversely and is manifested in the unprecedented increase in the cost estimate. The cost estimate was not provided timely or in compliance with the handbook, preventing resolution in time for planning the event.
4. The response to the application, cost estimate, and lack of cooperation in meetings with the agency have been arbitrary and capricious in that no reasonable explanation for the changes has been provided and the timing will cause the event to be canceled after substantial planning and investment has already taken place.
5. This event has a history of just one stipulation violation in four previous events on the same site, which was minor, promptly corrected, and not repeated. It involved the illegal use of legal fireworks. This one incident would not justify requiring three observers as part of our cost recovery estimate or stipulations. Again, it is evidence of an arbitrary and capricious decision.
6. We have complained in writing to BLM about problems with agency LE staff on two previous occasions. Those complaints went unanswered and ignored and it appears they may have triggered the negative attitude toward the event and contributed to the arbitrary and capricious current decision.
7. BLM is attempting to charge the event an amount greater than the total gross budget of our event. BLM was aware of the budget for the event after the application was submitted and prior to the revised cost estimate. Because we were told everything was proceeding as in previous years we proceeded to plan the event and arrange financing and established the budget. Due to the late date of the revised estimate and the BLM not following its own guidelines, the event will be precluded from proceeding. This action violates our right to due process under BLM’s guidelines. It negates BLM’s mandate to provide for environmentally sound, lawful uses while preserving our public lands for public use. In short, we believe BLM is attempting to regulate us out of existence and exclude us while allowing other events, which they apparently like, to occur. This affects us adversely and will cause harm to the organizers and all participants. Because it is arbitrary and capricious we request that implementing the cost estimated be stayed and the event should be to allow to proceed using the cost estimate for the previous, successful and lawful event.
8. That in our four events held on this site, and contrary to BLM’s own internal regulations, no After Action Reports have been filed for any of our events, and that therefore, this shows neither precedent nor reason for our user fees being increased for event number 5 by a factor of over 1600%. This affects us adversely and therefore a stay should be granted to allow the permitting to proceed.
9. We did not request a hard closure on Roach Lake, and certainly not one the size proposed by BLM. No reasonable explanation has been provided for the change, especially in light of the lack of any documented problems with previous events by the same organizer in the same location. Instead we have asked repeatedly for a multi use permit or exclusive use permit. We have no problem with other users of Roach Lake and we have never had any problems with the perimeter, area security or gate crashers in four events on this site. There is no danger to the general public or to event participants by not having a hard closure of our site. It appears that the huge increase in cost estimate and associated fees are directly related to BLM’s proposed hard closure.
10. The permit application was submitted in mid November of 2006. BLM had 30 days to get us the cost recovery estimate. In mid December 2006 we received a phone call telling us “everything looks good with your application” to which we replied “great we are going to begin selling tickets in two weeks (beginning of January)” the reply was “you are good to go”. This information was also posted on our website which BLM has visited. We must also assume that BLM is on our mailing list on Yahoo groups where we frequently make public announcements regarding the event. Ticket sales have been ongoing since January. In mid February 2007, three months after the permit application was submitted, we received the cost recovery estimate. We were blindsided by the very late and contradictory notice and are now faced with substantial harm if we can not pay the fees and could not hold the event and would have to refund tickets and suffer a loss of all expenditures to date. We believe that BLM violated its own regulations by these actions in not getting us the cost recovery estimate in a timely manner. This affects us adversely and therefore a stay should be granted to allow the permitting to proceed. It is also arbitrary and capricious and no reasonable explanation has been documented.
11. If the cost estimate and associated fees are left in place the only solution for the organizers is to hold a much larger event to benefit from economies of scale. We have clearly indicated to BLM that we do no want to become much larger. BLM has told us repeatedly that they don’t want to see ‘thousands of people’ on Roach Lake, yet that is exactly the situation they are creating by charging us around $60 per person to go camping and enjoy group activities. We are being forced to grow at a much faster rate than our infrastructure or business plan will allow. This affects us extremely adversely and therefore a stay should be granted to allow the permitting to proceed.
12. That the Closure area that BLM is requiring is over 400 times larger than the closure for Burningman on a per capita basis. Burningman is a similar event that we are compared to by BLM although there are significant differences as well. This event involves primarily local participants, already familiar with the desert environment, and requires much less set up and clean up. Using the Burningman closure for comparison, the closure for this event should be approximately 77 acres, not 35 square miles. This huge closure area is completely unworkable for an event of this size. We see no reason that the requirements for Burningman, a long standing successful event, also held on a dry lake bed, should not be extrapolated and applied to this event. That event is also held in Nevada and comes under the jurisdiction of the BLM’s Nevada state office, which has established standards and procedures for recreation permits. Precedent has been set for these types of events and again no reasonable rationale or explanation for the variance has been provided. We can only assume that this huge closure is directly related to our vastly increased costs, both of which we assert are arbitrary and capricious. This affects us adversely and therefore a stay should be granted to allow the permitting to proceed.
We are requesting additional time to request and produce additional documentation in support of these points within 30 days from the date of this appeal and stay application. It is our intent to produce sustainable and ethical family oriented art themed events this year and in the future. Our flawless record should be the basis for the cost estimate and is required under the regulations and is reiterated in BLM’s Recreation Permit Handbook. We have attempted to meet with BLM several times and have met twice to discuss the issue. We did not receive any reasonable explanation for the change nor willingness to find a workable solution. We regret being forced into the appeal process but have concluded we have no other realistic option to proceed with our permit process and hold the schedule event. We respect BLM employees, managers, and their responsibilities but can only conclude mistakes have been made in processing and administering our event.
Below we are also addressing the four points for granting a stay.
(i) The relative harm to the parties if the stay is granted or denied. There would be no harm to other parties if the stay is granted, particularly in light of the compliance record for this event in the past. The event organizers and participants would be irreparably harmed if the stay is not granted as they would not be able to hold and participate in the planned event and all committed costs, estimated to be $5,000 -$10,000 would be lost.
(ii) The likelihood of the appellant’s success on the merits. BLM violated its own guidelines, regulations, handbook, and established precedent in processing the permit and therefore there is a very high likelihood that we will prevail in this appeal on the merits.
(iii) The likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm if the stay is not granted. If the stay is not granted, the event will almost certainly be cancelled and can not be replaced. Because many of the anticipated participants will likely go ahead and come to an un-permitted, unorganized event, there is a likelihood of resource impacts and law enforcement requirements. If that occurs, the harm is also both immediate and irreparable and can not be recovered. If the stay is not granted, the organizer could not pay the fees and the event would not be permitted, both immediate and irreparable.
(iv) Whether the public interest favors granting the stay: the public interest is served by granting the stay in that some 500-700 members of the public would be prevented from participating in a lawful and permitted event which has been held several times in the past. The public interest is served if BLM is stayed from implementing an arbitrary and capricious decision which adversely affects so many lawful and well behaved public land users.
Sincerely,
******************************************
That's it! Questions? Comments? Hate mail? Words of gushing praise for all of our wonderful volunteers? Got a better way to do this?
Hit us on the event's official newsgroup which is here
groups.yahoo.com/group/DAR..._LASVEGAS/
Much love and respect, C.
posted by:
|
Las Vegas
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
