RRC Archives

That's awesome, Ian. That is the answer I'm looking for and I REALLY hope it works like that. It is the best solution. I think asking for 2-3 is very reasonable, and the best effort is put forth to convince Muir visitors. I personally haven't climbed there since Oct 2009, but I threw in 50 last year and hope to this year. This year, I hope it to be different in terms of climbing and donating.

The Webers have created quite a place there, and I hope their vision will continue on. My concern, as well as others, is if it's possible. I guess we just have to do our part and see what works.

Several thoughts and then I will let the fundraising campaign do the talking from here on.

- Many will never give a dime, others will give significantly.
- fundraising will be more sophisticated than waiving a tin cup at the parking lot
- We have a huge opportunity, we need everyone's support that believes MV is an essential part of the Red
- Climbing with a sense of entitlement is a thing of the past.
- FOMV will build a value statement, you will know where your contribution is going, and you will see our progress.

michaelarmand wrote:

TradMike wrote:You might as well give up on donations. That won't work. Just ask Radiohead how their pay what you want for our album turned out. 3 out of 5 paid nothing. The other 2 out of five didn't pay much. It needs to be sustainable or it just won't work. You have to figure out how to live on what you make. Not make and figure out how to pay for it. That is exactly why our economy is where it is at today. Most people won't step up. Some will but there are not enough of those kind. Just the facts not a bash.

Ever heard of the PMRP? The $200K mortgage is paid. The climbing community can sustain a property like MV if it becomes a priority to us. You are correct that many people will not contribute anything....which means we get to give more.

I have heard of the PRMP and have climbed there once. I also gave $50 for my one visit so I do pay where I play. Where there any major donors for PRMP? How easy it that to do again? Maybe follow the PMRP model again. I just don't see strictly donations working year over year for that amount. PRMP was a one time deal and it has been left as is for the most part. Start up costs are high but general maintenance should be a lot lower so you would have that going for you. I have never climbed at Muir but I do like how empty the gorge proper is so I do see myself contibuting. Best of luck.

michaelarmand wrote:

TradMike wrote:You might as well give up on donations. That won't work. Just ask Radiohead how their pay what you want for our album turned out. 3 out of 5 paid nothing. The other 2 out of five didn't pay much. It needs to be sustainable or it just won't work. You have to figure out how to live on what you make. Not make and figure out how to pay for it. That is exactly why our economy is where it is at today. Most people won't step up. Some will but there are not enough of those kind. Just the facts not a bash.

Ever heard of the PMRP? The $200K mortgage is paid. The climbing community can sustain a property like MV if it becomes a priority to us. You are correct that many people will not contribute anything....which means we get to give more.

Yeah, but wasn't that $200K over 10 years? Not to mention having the entire down payment put up by one singular person? So that's LESS than $20K a year. I'm sure someone can clarify EXACTLY what was spent and when, but Muir has 4-5 times that per year... IMHO, you seem to be comparing apples to oranges.

And Ian, keep on taxing brotha. I think that has worked for DumBoma, No?

climb2core wrote:Input on what Rick and Liz's vision for MV should and what they want to achieve for the future of MV? Yes, you are correct... they are not soliciting input. It is not a community responsibility... it is community choice.

We can
a) Support the Webers vision for MV and donate $2-$3 per visit and show we can operationally manage the land in return for access to MV as a climbing venue in perpetuity.

or

b) Decide that is not an acceptable expenditure and lose MV as a climbing venue.

Pretty self centered attitude to start qualifying under what conditions you will accept THEIR gift. Don't you think you have it backwards?

this is more of the unclear propositioning characteristic of this broader campaign.

Does anybody know a rough estimate of the operational cost of the PMRP?

Patrick, while I can understand the desire to compare MV to the PMRP. However, I would say that the comparison is mostly not relevant and will not yield anything of value. Think of the differences... Well maintained gravel roads, ample flat parking that is not a mud pit, emergency response supplies, well maintained trails, impact areas at base of crags, bridges, toilets at the parking lot and soon the valley floor, etc.

I am not saying that either path is better or worse, just different. And as the land owners of MV, it is the Webers absolute right to decide how they will manage the land. Many, many people appreciate those attributes and that is the community that we hope to appeal to. The other group that might support MV are those that don't really believe in the Webers vision, but are pragmatic enough to realize that the busy season now would seem like the dead of winter without MV.

Who's Patrick?

Agreed though--the maintenance costs of the PMRP are irrelevant, as the landowners have made it clear at what level they want MV to be maintained. It is 100% the landowner's prerogative on private land such as this... it is not a decision to be made by committee.

climb2core wrote:Patrick, while I can understand the desire to compare MV to the PMRP. However, I would say that the comparison is mostly not relevant and will not yield anything of value. Think of the differences... Well maintained gravel roads, ample flat parking that is not a mud pit, emergency response supplies, well maintained trails, impact areas at base of crags, bridges, toilets at the parking lot and soon the valley floor, etc.

I am not saying that either path is better or worse, just different. And as the land owners of MV, it is the Webers absolute right to decide how they will manage the land. Many, many people appreciate those attributes and that is the community that we hope to appeal to. The other group that might support MV are those that don't really believe in the Webers vision, but are pragmatic enough to realize that the busy season now would seem like the dead of winter without MV.

One of the issues is that these two properties are competing for limited funds. One is asking for funds to purchase property and maintain minimal upkeep, the other is asking for funds to maintain a high level of upkeep plus other luxuries. Climbers will start choosing where they want to donate their money and there is no shortage of places asking for donations; Mank Bank, Team Suck, RRGCC, FoMV, Access Fund, SECC, New River Alliance, etc.

I really think you are missing the point. Money is limited and when you are competing for donations with many other groups, don't be surprised if people don't want to donate to a place that has luxuries far beyond any other climbing spot. The Webers can do what they want, but I just don't think it is financially sustainable, especially considering you are asking to raise 2x-3x more a year than the PMRP mortgage was.

Good luck.

Andrew, I would contend that you vastly under estimate the financial resources of the climbing community at large. There is potential for more than enough to go around for everyone. The trick is developing the fundrasing platform.