New Telluride Town Manager Is Greg Clifton of Ridgway
by Karen James
Apr 20, 2010 | 3166 views | 41 41 comments | 23 23 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Contract Signed, Will Begin June 2

TELLURIDE – Current Ridgway Town Manger Greg Clifton will cross the Dallas Divide to become Telluride’s highest non-elected official effective June 2.

After meeting with its three finalists honed from an initial field of more than 60 candidates last weekend for final interviews, community meet and greets and town tours, the Telluride Town Council unanimously approved Clifton’s contract as the new town manager when it met on Tuesday.

“We began negotiating the contract [Monday] night,” said Mayor Stu Fraser. “The contract was signed today.”

Clifton will earn an annual salary of $107,000 and receive a $20,000 annual housing stipend as compensation for the position, which is a pay cut from his current position and less than average for a mountain resort town manager, Fraser said.

“The feeling from council was that he would be a really good partner with the town and with the council,” said Fraser. “He has a very understanding way about him.”

Additionally, “He knows a lot about Telluride,” said Fraser, indicating that Clifton “did his homework.”

Which is not to say that the other candidates, Shane Hale of Grand Lake and Mike Segrest of Moraga, Calif., did not.

“The comfort zone with someone from the region was so strong…as well as being extremely qualified,” said Fraser.

Since becoming the Ridgway Town Manager in 2001, Clifton has secured over $3 million in grant funding for the town, forged partnerships and facilitated land donations resulting in the town’s acquisition of over 80 acres of contiguous riparian corridor and two passive-use parks, and implemented council policies and objectives including a dark-skies policy, a non-toxic herbicide policy, an affordable housing program, community composting and curbside recycling programs, and a pending sustainable building policy.

An attorney, he has also provided land use review and legal assistance to municipalities including Mountain Village, Ouray, Paonia, Nucla and Naturita, as well as to the Montrose County Airport Authority.

Prior to joining the Ridgway government he was the Montrose City Attorney from 1994-2003.

“I think it’s just such a good fit, both ways,” said Clifton when interviewed by The Watch shortly after learning he was a finalist candidate.

“I love the community, I love the town, the progressive, cutting edge mindset,” he continued, adding that he likes Telluride’s “progressive, can do attitude.”

In the meantime outgoing Town Manager Frank Bell, who is now running a private community on California’s Mendocino Coast called The Sea Ranch, will continue his role as a part-time consultant to the town until June 1 when he hands over the reigns to Clifton.

“I know Greg very well,” said Bell when asked about his replacement.

“He’s perfect for the job,” he continued, adding that Clifton understands mountain towns and is already well connected with the local community and its leadership.

“He’ll work well with the council, work well with the staff and work well with the community,” Bell said.

Comments
(41)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Welcome Greg
|
April 25, 2010
This is an article about the new town manager so I just want to welcome him to the best town in the U.S. (in my opinion). Sure people gripe, but a few loud mouths don't represent most of us--who really love the town. This isn't to say that some gripes aren't legitimate, but for the most part we are extremely lucky. To "Say What," I would just say that our revenues are extremely stable compared to most other places. I attribute this to the townspeople having the foresight to protect our most beautiful assets like the valley floor and the Bear Creek. We are never going to employ the whole world or make every business a gold mine (which is good because then we would be too big).
THCPA
|
April 25, 2010
Mr. Face-hit the nail on the head.

We all here the whine about lobbyists in Washington...well we got em right here in Tride-using the government for private benefit.

For the most part, they are the government. And now, the government is its own lobby-like a cancer cell it knows no limit to its growth.

Look at the recent public school funding issue. Teachers and admin, while commandeering 85% of the public resources contributed nothing net to solving the budget problem (they worked less and got paid less). The kids contributed 100%-they will get less of critical resources for those on the margins in terms of family structure, technology resources and phys/ment/intell disabilities. The school is no longer organized for the kids benefit but for the benefit of its employees.

Look at town government. Sitting up top the hill the first positive increase in tax revenues and they are thinking bonuses...yet real incomes for those they serve have fallen drastically. Who do they serve?

As it relates to TSG-a private company with every right not to disclose its financial activities but its main offering is built on public land. It is regretful that TSG sees its prosperity through increased tourism by lobbying for relaxed zoning for hotels and increases in public support fot TMRAO etc. Each and every relaxed zoning is supported by a decrease in the quality of life of tangent residents; the airline tax is a direct corporate welfare payment, the direct line to NFS headquarters has the same effect as the relaxed zoning laws. Yet an untouchable is something TSG has direct control over-ski fees. TSG also interfered in the market for mountain biking (heading to Moab myself next weekend) and now wants to compete with TofT festivals by creating a concert venue...

So Mr. Say What-your argument for the common interest by personal sacrifice is a good one until we see who it benefits-and principally it benefits the entrenched private interest like real estate holders (property tax is laughable), large corporate interests like TSG, etc.

Socialism for the rich-capitalism for the kid making ten bucks an hour.

Finally, two real world examples on how lower prices drive consumption-Smugglers Bar and Grill is always busy-good food and much lower prices. How many of us go to Montrose to shop for groceries? Why? Because the prices are lower, so much lower that it is worth the 20bucks in gas to go.

FaceOnMars (nli)
|
April 25, 2010
I almost forgot:

3.) An organic evolution of a free market will have a more solid foundation than a market artificially supported by governmental interventionism.
FaceOnMars (nli)
|
April 25, 2010
Say What: it might help to keep in mind Newton's 3rd law: "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction", regarding my main gripes with economic interventionism:

1.) Economic interventionism dilutes a government's ability to serve the core needs of it's populace in an unfettered manner to it's fullest capability. Moreover, once gov. embarks down such a road, the beaurocracy tends to grow and take on a life of it's own. In lean years, it becomes a task to determine that which is really necessary to maintain .... and only then becomes apparent how much energy gets expended unecessarily. I believe the "economic fairness" THCPA refers to regarding regressive taxes are essentially a "symptom" of this disfunctional layering upon layering of "quasi governmental economic interventionism".

2.) The selection of any given economic course is arbitrary and most likely influenced by a special interest which stands to benefit at the expense of either another specific interest or set of general alternatives which weren't selected in the first place. I simply don't believe it is the government's ROLE TO DECIDE the course of economic progression in so far as determining how a market is defined in so far as it's substantial footprint or nature of activity. On the contrary, the free market is a much a more equitable and effective mechanism to dictate such a course.

When you start adding on layer upon layer of economic interventionism, gov. becomes a player in the game and drifts away from just being a referee or an officiating entity which establishes a level playing field -- resulting in what might be called a pathology of favoritism toward particular markets (if not specific businesses).

So, your question about my line of work is completely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. I'm afraid this "firewall" might be eluding you and a few others who push for more "help" from gov't, but it's not really anything new in history.

If you must know, I'm "none of the above" re: your suspicions. While I am luckily doing OK, I still must work regularly and do so in a computer related field ... although I am not currently dependent upon visitors as my primary source of income. As THCP states, I am also looking out for other citizens ... but not necessarily how the taxes affect their bottom line, but rather how the philosophy behind the taxes (and other gov interventionism) affect's their role as citizens and how the market gets "unfairly shaped".

Maybe you might want to ask yourself if your beliefs are the way they are because YOU stand to benefit from tourism. For the reasons I've expounded upon, the repetition of "We are a tourist town" or "we all benefit" line just doesn't cut in in terms of fairness ... or at least that's how I see it.

THCPA
|
April 24, 2010
Good evening-so tell me why wont lower lift prices help? Here is my point-TSG loves the TMRAO tax-to help bring in visitors but wont lower its day pass (highest in the state?). Who pays for the TMRAO? Who does it benefit?

Yes, we need lower prices and we are about to get them across the board on real estate as the new wave of foreclosures corrects the hyperinflation...cant wait-I love a corrected market.

What hurts local business much harder than our anemic property taxes (I just paid 17k in property taxes over at the courthouse on Friday) on near 4mm in property (purchase price)) is the lack of visitors. And the lack of visitors is due to better opportunities for skiing across the country-Utah and front range, etc. Telluride is the most expensive place to ski I can think of ...

Look at the lodging tax-a hidden tax that pisses everyone off..who gets that money? Who benefits?

The answer is lower prices, lower taxes and to try and compete on a price level.

RETT should be replaced by a more robust property tax -like the rest of the US- and when the property tax replacement is negotiated a sharp eye towards town and county expenditures should be made. Bring out the knife.

Lower prices, lower taxes, return to decent government services-screw all the hidden taxes like the TMRAO which is corporate socialism.

Say What?
|
April 24, 2010
THCPA

It's good to hear you are concerned about economic fairness. But regressive local taxes are far from the biggest problem facing Telluride's working population. Lack of viable business opportunities, lack of remunerative year-round employment, and the high cost of living all pose far bigger challenges.

And local sales taxes, while regressive, hurt far less than property taxes, which hit local businesses that can least afford it especially hard. Without enough sales tax, your potholes can only be filled by property taxes or by Real Estate Transfer Taxes, which are even more damaging to locals because they foster dependency on an unsustainable real estate-based economy, contribute to the high cost of real estate, and embed the idea of constant turnover in home ownership in our local culture. (Are you gonna sell your house or should I sell mine to generate RETT for those potholes?)

If your concern is income equality, then you really should be beating the drum for policies and investments that generate more visitation. Less taxation is of trivial benefit compared to more economic activity.

THCPA
|
April 24, 2010
We are a country club for the rich.

I am not available to continue but will later...

I ask of Dave - what does the GINI curve look like in Zermatt? It seems to me that there is much more income equity in Switzerland than here and as such everyone actually shares in the community investments (through taxation of the general public).

My dog in this fight is income equality-damn tired of having regressive taxes to support private enterprise. I am a self made investor and am not affected by the constant drumbeatfor wasteful taxes but I support many who are affected by the 10% taxes here in Telluride.

In addition, I am against any more ski area development beyond its borders. Keep Bear Creek for the adventurers who can ski it (I cant-old and creaky and was never a great skiier to boot). TSG should have a place at the table but so should the public. Otherwise we will see unilateral mountain bike trail closures (cutting off that shoulder season tourist) simultaneously as we conduct more economic planning meetings to develop shoulder seasons.

I will say that I came to Telluride an ardent capitalist; these last three years when we bailed out the rich (AIG and GOLDMAN SACHS) on the backs of all US taxpayers and especially the middle and lower economic classes - I have questioned my entire belief system. Here in Telluride I see the regressive taxes (principally sales taxes) as something that needs to be changed for anyone under 50 or 80 k per year and when I see the money being spent for a city manager at 150k (with tax load and not including deferred benefits) and potholes in the main road...well..something needs to be changed

Anyhow, this has been a great series of posts and I have learned from every post - Telluride is full of smart people..like Riley says-we need to get together and not just to figure out how to build hot beds.

and your employment
|
April 24, 2010
Say What? Oh you're a realtor. Sotheby's huh? How did I guess?

P.S. Rielly, please keep your commercial activities out of Bear Creek. You've done enough damage already.
Say What?
|
April 24, 2010
So FOM and TCHPA:

Don't want to reveal whether you work here?

And if so, in what sector?

Could you possibly be trust-funders? Retired? Second homeowners?

And you STILL DON'T reveal the alternative economy to a visitor based one.

As for what sorts of zoning: allow variances for desirable development, most significantly bedbase. And, yes, underwrite it, if necessary, just as the CITY OF DENVER had to build its own convention center hotel and it's own airport hotel (floating revenue bonds to do it). The returns to the city and community are well worth the investment, as they would be here.

As for low occupancy rates: lots of crappy bedbase (badly aging condos) plus inadequate amenities and transportation options for groups, who are the ones who travel at shoulder seasons. We actually do just fine with occupancy during periods when families with kids out of school travel. That's about 16 weeks a year. It's not hard to count those weeks if you are in business here. It's all the other times of the year when we flail, and flail badly. Triple that 16 weeks and we'd be fine.

There are no "computer models." Just common sense. Look at the facts: We ARE visitor based or nothing. We ARE flailing badly. We CANNOT thrive on a 16-week economy. We LACK key elements of a sustainable resort. It is within our power as a community to create those elements. It's NOT SOCIALISM. It's just being smart and pro-active.

The real issue is, as Riley puts it: do we want a sustainable community here? If so we have to work for it. Otherwise, we will be a country club for the rich. While I see that as a truly dismal future, I wonder if secretly that's exactly what some people want. Because their prescriptions sure are leading us there.
Dave Riley
|
April 24, 2010
Just for the record, I'm not part of this string between THCPA and Say What - but I'm facinated by the dialog. I don't know who these folks are.

It seems to me the question is that Telluride (and Mtn. Village) needs some sort of productive and efficient economic base - most would agree to that (at least a majority?). If that's true, and we want to be good at what we do over the long haul (on a sustainable basis), what industry is the best fit for Telluride?

I think a visitor-based economy which seeks more year-round productivity is the most logical. Other business can then tier off that engine in a great number of ways. Some may disagree with what I just said, but I'd like to hear what economic model actually has a stronger a possibility of working in this place - if there is one.

Having said that, if a 10 month (or better) visitor-based economy is the target, what are the obsticles which are preventing us from achieving that goal?

The list would probably include better air service to both TEX and MTJ, better conference facilities (need break-out rooms at or near the MV conference center, better hot beds (at least some of which have a recognizable brand) so the groups can have a predictable high-quality experience, a gondola that runs more in the off seasons, a great restaurant and retail mix in both town and village, a strong arts and entertainment sector, well maintained public infrastructure (roads, sidewalks, etc.), well trained guest-centric front line staff who enjoy their jobs (and places for them to live in or nearby the town and village), a beautiful and healthy natural environment, a strong sales and marketing program, great year-round recreation opportunities, and alignment among our community members and elected officials to work toward making that all happen.

Both the public sector and the private sector would have to work in harmony to make that kind of strategy happen. It's not all up to one or the other - it's a community after all (common- unity: community).

But, I guess that presumes at least a majority of the community wants a functional and sustainable environment and economy for our town(s). As a parent, I certainly do, and I know others do too. There is certainly a group of folks who don't want that kind of prosperity and opportunity for the people who live and work here - or for the kids who want to be able to live and work here - which is hard for me to believe.

We've got to stop the paranoia and stone throwing and get on with the hard work of helping make this place better for the people who live and work here, the visitors, and the second homeowners. The ski company is trying, but we're only one entity. Sure we (and I) have made mistakes, and we (and I) are willing to own those mistakes, but TSG is at least trying. Others in the community are trying also, but it's really hard work when so many others just sit back and cast stones.

Thanks for listening.
FaceOnMars (nli)
|
April 24, 2010
Say What: your vision might work extremely well when run through a computer modeling program designed to "build cities" and crunch out production numbers, but let's get real here ... people aren't machines and most of us try to play by free market rules which have ALREADY been established - even if it isn't exactly a "pure" free market.

It would be a very neat trick to devise an "interventionist plan" where EVERYONE felt comfortable jumping on board. Maybe if you "nationalized" Telski and all other business activity in town, and implemented some sort of revenue sharing system ... then maybe you'd have something which everyone could support! Call it the Telluride Communal Village. I would have far less of an issue if such cards were plainly laid out on the table vs. government playing favorites in an existing free market as you seem to propose. In this sense, I'm hardly a free market idealist, but rather a proponent of "fair play". I believe THCPA hit the nail on the head in stating that it is "Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor".

While your proposals may very well ramp up business activity in some regards, the vast majority of those who work on the front lines will see minimal gains, yet ONLY THOSE FEW in a position of ownership or higher management will see exponential income growth and market entrenchment.

If the bed base is sooooo tiny, then why do we average only 50% occupancy?
THCPA
|
April 24, 2010
Mr. Say What-

What changes in zoning do you support and what infrastructure investments do you think we need to prosper?

Thanks
Say What?
|
April 24, 2010
EVERYONE here who isn't independently wealthy depends on VISITATION. Either on visitors to their second homes or short-term visitors. Everyone who works, that is. (I exaggerate. Maybe there's a working day trader or two.) If money does not flow into the community from visitors, then where the hell does it come from?

Telski has invested... in a new lift, in new terrain, in new restaurants. Could they/should they invest more? Sure. We'd all like that, although it would tend to concentrate the economy in the hands of the biggest company in the region at the expense of smaller businesses. But why would they make that sort of investment if the community doesn't support increased visitation? Telski can survive just fine on the few rich. It's the community that can't and won't survive without more year-round visitors. Without more visitation, we will become increasingly a country club inhabited by the idle rich.

I am not advocating government handouts to private business. That is a red herring. I am advocating visitation-supportive policies (zoning) and investments (infrastructure).

Without more visitors, taxes will have to go UP, not down. Because visitors bring money to the community. Without more visitors, we will have continually anemic sales taxes and increasing reliance on property tax -- further punishing the decreasing number of locals -- and real estate transfer tax, which we all should know by now, is highly subject to boom and bust and is the very definition of "not sustainable" since it implies both incessant real estate inflation and the need for a constant turnover of homes.

High lift ticket prices are another red herring. The only way that reducing lift ticket prices works is if it generates more volume. That's not likely when we have such a tiny bedbase, such expensive access, and so few nearby day skiers. Who exactly is going to buy those cheaper lift tix?

When will one of you anti-tourist, small-government zealots explain where you think the money to sustain the community will come from? That is the key question none of you EVER ADDRESSES. Reducing the cost of government, while always desirable, is no answer. Economics is NOT a zero-sum game, which is how you resemble tea baggers, who, like you, just can't comprehend the value of public investments.

When will you finally explain how people can survive here without adequate visitation? (And current levels are clearly not adequate.) Our economy has (barely) survived on the last ten years only on UNSUSTAINABLE levels of real estate activity. Do you really thing the real estate boom is coming back? Or that if it does, that's a good thing?

How the hell do you make your living? Do you work? If not, that alone could explain your attitude. And if you do work, and if the business you own or work for doesn't depend on visitation, what does it depend on?

THCPA
|
April 24, 2010
Mr. Say What-

Tell me, if visitors are our bread and butter, why shouldnt TSG lower the price of a day ticket or a weekend ticket to "build the ball park" -showing the investors who might want to invest in a hot bed that there is increased skiier volume in Tride? Can you make a comment on TSG's public statement that lower prices arent in the marketing plan?

Tell me, Mr. Say What, why shouldnt TSG make the investments in hot beds-certainly they have significant pull at the regulatory level in TMV and and NFS,etc. In other words, why should the people whose life is not related to tourism be taxed to support non-governmental objectives?

Your prescription of government control to benefit the owners of certain entities like ski lifts and hot beds sounds like socialism for the rich and to support your assistance to these entities the poor will get to pay a regressive tax on something (whatever the govt can get away with taxing).

Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.

Which gets me back to my original post-governments exist first and foremost for public safety-we have had how many notices here in Tride about turbid water? The cocaine cart where 900k of cash and guns and whatever else were being sold (lbs of cocaine? I cant remember) was found is in eyesight of the marshall's office. We have a guy dead of a heroin overdose and thats the last we heard of it...so public safety is questionable. The roads are a mess. Employees want bonuses.

And you want Telluride to support private enterprise ...

Not buying it and will work against it.

Say What?
|
April 24, 2010
As to Tea Bagger hysteria: point clarified and understood.

As to government involvement in the economy: it's not just marketing. It's not just taxpayer dollars going to marketing. Telluride's current system of funding marketing using business license fees and lodging tax revenues is appropriate, in my opinion, if too small. It's a whole plethora of things. Zoning incentives may be the most important, so that our limited supply of land goes to the best and highest use. Telluride has consistently refused to approve Planned Unit Developments to encourage hotel development and we've gotten a whole lot of dark condos as a result. Our best hotel sites have been downzoned. That's been great for the landowners and the real estate community (in the short run) but a disaster for the community (in the long run). We have dark condos and second homes where high density would have been highly appropriate: at the gondola base! And it was government policy driven by misguided philosophy that brought this disaster about, not the free market.

The reason bedbase is so critical is because it is the "means of production," to borrow Marx's phrase. Bedbase supports a larger ecosystem of small businesses, collectively providing jobs, tax revenues and vitality. Absent bedbase we have gotten second homes, which provide far less of all three.

Other infrastructure that supports visitation may also fall to government. We HAVE the recreational amenities: what nature provides plus a ski resort. But has Zermatt been foolish to provide easy transportation, a pedestrian-only town, a robust lift system, and a protected bedbase? All of this was done by government, by the community, acting collectively. The result is a sustainable ecosystem of small hotels, restaurants and retail. Locals can actually survive there! They can even envision their children surviving there.

Bedbase, transit and infrastructure, along with marketing, are all legitimate areas for governmental engagement. Sadly, we have two strains of local philosophical thought that make it difficult if not impossible for us to advance: those who fetishize the free market (except when it comes to open space and housing), the libertarians, and those who favor shrinkage of the economy in the mistaken belief that to do so is more "sustainable", the hard-line enviromentalists.

What we need, in my opinion, is a recognition that visitation is our bread-and-butter so that we can pursue policies that support it. It's not a matter of spending scarce tax dollars. It's a matter of generating more tax dollars from visitors in the form of sales and lodging tax so that local residents don't have to pay more in property tax just to maintain basic services! It's not a matter of too much growth and development, it's a matter of long term sustainability of the community by supporting the right kinds of development. It's not about government running things. It's about community planning.

FaceOnMars (nli)
|
April 23, 2010
Say What: the "hysteria" I was referring to was with respect to the so-called tea baggers' who seem to have found an outlet to vent their frustrations, but don't know exactly what they stand for except some abstract notion of "limited gov't". In Oklahoma there is apparently a movement to start a militia apart from the National Guard. Until I encounter credible evidence that gov't trains are rolling away people to "camps", I will refer to this aspect of the tea party movement as hysteria. In fact, I'm more afraid that tea baggers' might ultimately put on their engineer caps down the road!

Getting back to the issue of limited government in Telluride: I simply don't believe it's an appropriate role for the town to be an active participant in the marketing endeavors of the private sector ... other than serving as a referee or an official conduit to establish a fair and level "playing field" in accordance with the will of the people (i.e. zoning). I am all for keeping the necessary infrastructure humming along ... and if this helps Telluride "present itself in a better light to tourists", then GREAT! However, such a rationale ought not be the motivation for infrastructure improvements and the like ... rather infrastructure ought to serve the population's core needs.

As THCPA alludes to, why on God's green earth would you prefer to have gov't create & administer a marketing campaign over an effort spearheaded and funded by an association of similar and vested interests in the private sector? In other words, why would you want a beaurocracy which doesn't immediately "feel the pinch of the bottom line" in control of such an effort? At least with a private sector campaign, you'll have accountability for how an association's funds have been allocated and will keep much closer tabs on ROI. Or, is it that you'd rather see a larger funding source (aka taxpayers) absorb this burden? This is almost akin to going out to dinner with a group of people and drinking 10x more than anyone else ... all the while knowing that you'll be splitting the tab evenly.
ok dudette
|
April 23, 2010
Drive to get here... but then park it.
dudette
|
April 23, 2010
To "if you can't walk": I in fact walk hundreds of miles during both seasons for my fun, but happen to live outside the town limits. Heard of our surrounding communities, Placerville, Norwood, Montrose? Hmmmm..... don't think much would get done in town if all of us don't show up for work. Get off your lazy butt and take a look beyond the round-about-, DUDE!
THCPA
|
April 23, 2010
Yes, Say What, lets raise enough taxes so we can accomplish all your goals that only a government can provide -driving the cost to come to Telluride through the roof. Then, lets leave it to the free market (ie families at home comparing choices on where to spend their vacation dollars) and see whether they choose to come and spend the most money possible to have a vacation.

Meanwhile, we have flowers welcoming the visitors to Telluride immediately before the potholes that line Colorado avenue from Aspen to Willow.

Face is right..time to get back to limited government...even if every other community in America is drinking the kool aid and cant keep their streets paved, toilets flushing, water clear, cocaine carts from flourishing 100 yards from the marshalls office and flowers to welcome their guests..

Wait..that is Telluride!
Say What?
|
April 23, 2010
Well FACE, it's not hysteria. It's simply good, enlightened government. There isn't a successful community anywhere that has a government that abstains as you advocate from economic development. Your faith in the free market is not based on anything observable, but is akin to religion. Very simply, the free market does NOT take care of everything. Smart communities act collectively through their governments to advance their common good, which consists of far more than road maintenance, sewage and water, and trash removal. Zoning and planning policies, for example, inevitably impact the business environment, as does tax policy. So does the preservation of open space, the funding of good schools, and the protection of historic structures. In Telluride, the creation of affordable housing is done to support business, using tax dollars. The sharp distinction you draw between the governmental activities you support as legitimate functions of government and those you don't may be clear in your mind, but I can't see any rational basis for it. It seems obvious that Telluride's economy is based on VISITATION. Fewer visitors mean fewer successful businesses, fewer jobs, and less tax revenue to support public services. If that's what we want, surely we can have it, simply by following your advice. But if we want a sustainable community, then we would be wise to support a range of policies that attract visitors, and we would be foolish to leave it to chance -- or the free market.