Read Part One
How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie is one of the most popular "self-help" books ever published. It has sold 15 million copies world-wide since its first edition appeared in 1937. It touched a nerve and filled a human need that was more than a faddish phenomenon of post-Depression days — as evidenced by its continued and uninterrupted sales into the 21st century. Amazon.com currently lists the book as number 185 in its Amazon Bestsellers Rank.
The book’s first draft was actually written by a stenographer hired to transcribe some lectures that business expert Dale Carnegie was delivering at the Hotel Pennsylvania in New York City in 1935 — lectures attended by thousands of business men and women during the worst economic depression in anyone’s memory.
20 percent of the nation’s population was living on welfare at the time.
I haven’t read the entire 200-page book, but you can click here to download it as a PDF file.
I think we could all learn something from Mr. Carnegie, in reference to a proposal from the Town Tourism Committee (TTC) to put the citizens of rural Pagosa Springs $4.3 million in debt to build a modest amusement park atop Reservoir Hill in the center of our town’s only wilderness park.
A handful of people are pushing this “recreation park” concept — TTC members Bob Hart, Larry Fisher, and Thad McKain; TTC executive director Jennie Green; and Town manager David Mitchem — and that group held its first “public information session” on January 25 to present the plan, answer questions, and listen to audience comments.
To judge from the comments we heard from the public that night, the amusement park — as presented in the current plan — is not popular among the citizens of Archuleta County, although most everyone agreed that certain, select upgrades to the Reservoir Hill Park might be welcomed, and appreciated. The upgrades that nearly everyone seemed to favor included improved road access, an improved performance venue, and forest maintenance.
On Thursday morning, I included in Part One of this article series a link to an online survey about Reservoir Hill posted on the Town website. Apparently, that link had enabled some of our Daily Post readers to log in and take that survey, which asked for input on proposed changes to Reservoir Hill.
Later the same day, I received the news from a couple of our readers that the survey had disappeared from the Town website. Indeed, when I checked, the page was now blank.
But a few of our readers had participated in the survey before it disappeared.
One of them, Doyle Qualls, wrote me this email.
“For what it’s worth, I was able to use the link in the Daily Post to respond to the Town’s survey about Reservoir Hill. I voted to “Do nothing, leave it as it is”. My vote was recorded and I was able to access the survey results up to that time. Since I didn’t expect to need to remember the results these numbers may be a couple off, but are very close. 17—Do nothing; 14—Amphitheater, 2—Bathrooms, 4—Do it all. I don’t recall the number for the Nordic trails. Could be an indication of why the survey came down.”
Another reader, who asked not to be identified, wrote:
 “Regarding your recent article, FYI, I clicked the link, made my selection and sent if off (early in the day). I recall seeing the tabulated survey results displayed as of that time, and it overwhelmingly indicated that a large percentage of responders had said they wanted nothing done to RH. I also noted that the survey did not have an adequate array of questions, but the results were very clear... only a small number of responders wanted anything done at all, and of those they only wanted the least amount of development.”
Those reported results — to a survey that has now been removed — seem to accurately reflect the responses we heard at the Reservoir Hill “information session” held at the Ross Aragon Community Center last week. The overwhelming response there was: “Yes, please, make improvements to the park, but don’t build an amusement park in the midst of our wilderness area.”
Here’s one typical speaker from the January 25 meeting:
“Back a few years ago, there was a Parks & Recreation Master Plan done in this community. Was the direction from that plan, for this beautiful piece of property to be developed with passive recreation activities, in that Master Plan?
“I think you need to look at — and some of you may remember — in the 1970s, Marriott built their “Great America” theme parks, one in Illinois, and another out in California. Every year, they were changing the rides. You know, the ride had to get bigger and better. And these rides only exist for so long, as an attraction."
“Do you want a honky-tonk town?” she asked.
Indeed, the Marriott Corporation did build two theme parks in the mid-1970s, one in Santa Clara, California and one in Gurnee, Illinois. A third park planned for Washington DC was abandoned due to public opposition.
The Santa Clara park has changed ownership four times since it was built, and currently includes 28 rides. Here’s a list of 17 rides that were installed at the Santa Clara park, and then subsequently removed:
Invertigo, Stealth, Great America Scenic Railway, Yankee Clipper, Tidal Wave, The Edge, Skyhawk, Sky Whirl, Lobster, Bottoms Up, Triple Play, Nickelodeon Central, Whizzer, Trolley Cars, Dolphin and Seal Show, Smurf Woods, Cajun Carpet.
As this speaker had suggested, theme parks and amusement parks regularly update and change their rides, for numerous reasons —including safety concerns — but mainly because returning customers eventually get bored with the same old rides and stop attending the park.
Another speaker at the January 25 meeting, Jerry Smith, summarized the current TTC situation this way:
“It seems to me that a lot of the contention centers around the ancillary attractions. Six or seven months ago, there was a pretty consensual agreement in the community that a better amphitheater, and a better road, and cleaning up the forest were good ideas.
"It seems to me that the public contention is about some of these [amusement rides].
“I know how hard you guys have worked, and I value the background of the people who have worked on this, but my point is, why is it an all-or-nothing? Since we don’t have the money anyway, and since the different kinds of funding are going to come from different places?
”Why can’t we phase it, so we focus on some of the non-contentious that need to be done right away — the amphitheater, the road, and the forest — and continue to build consensus for the rest of this? And have some surveys that have check boxes, ‘Yes’ and ‘No,’ or ‘I like this better than that’ or ‘I wouldn’t mind doing this, if we could adjust it this way.’
“That way, we can make the dialog a little more positive. Because I hate to see everyone taking positions, so we have the babies being thrown out with the bathwater.
“There are some really important things that we all could probably agree on. The most demonstrably successful thing for tourism in this community has been the Folk Festival. Providing them a better venue, plus maybe film showings, lectures by visiting scholars, classical music, all sorts of things could take place in an amphitheater.
“I think we can find something everyone could be in favor of.”
Dreaming up a publicly-funded plan to improve Pagosa’s overall economy is one thing — and a very tricky thing, easily prone to failure.
Dreaming up a publicly-funded plan that the community as a whole wants to embrace, is another thing.
What might Dale Carnegie say about the way the TTC is seemingly trying to force a preconceived “recreation park” plan on an unwilling citizenry?
And what about that unsettling "petition" that was circulated by the Reservoir Hill Task Force?
Read Part Four... |