Tonight, Traverse City commissioners will tackle a controversial issue that's been the subject of much debate since this summer: How often, where and under what parameters should special events be allowed in city spaces? In advance of any decisions, The Ticker got a read from leaders who have opinions and might shape the conversation.

The Ticker: For what reasons should we or shouldn't we restrict events and festivals in Traverse City? What might be the long-term impact (positive or negative) of restricting events?
Michael Estes, Traverse City Mayor: Units of government place restrictions and establish laws on many issues in the interest of the common good. We regulate noise, speed limits, building codes...for the common good, Traverse City should have restrictions on events and festivals on public property.

Brad Van Dommelen, President/CEO of Traverse City Tourism: I don't feel we should restrict events and festivals in Traverse City. The core issue is really a matter of perspective. You can either view events and festivals as a nuisance and an expense to the city, where you set policies to deter this activity, or you can view them as a catalyst for economic activity, where you set policies to encourage this activity.

Jim Carruthers, Traverse City Commissioner: The long-term impact (of restricting events) is saying no to tourism and the economic development potential of growing our community and downtown with entertainment. We've become a popular tourist destination and we should maintain that. It's maintaining our economy.

Sam Porter, Owner of Porterhouse Productions: It's true we can only have so many events in Traverse City. The market would regulate that, even if the city didn't. What's concerning isn't the possibility of reasonable regulations but of creating a negative culture around events and festivals and have that be the defining attitude of our community.

Jered Ottenwess, Traverse City Manager: The event concerns raised by the commission related specifically to four primary issues: frequency, fees, trash and noise. Those have more to do with (restricting) the impacts of special events...(versus) restricting events themselves.

The Ticker: Are there situations where it makes sense for some groups to be excluded from the city's event policy, as is currently the case with the National Cherry Festival (NCF) and Traverse City Film Festival (TCFF)?
Jim Carruthers: If we're going to set standards, they have to apply to all festivals. If we're going to be strict with anyone, we have to be strict with everyone.

Sam Porter: Events the size of NCF and TCFF do require special contracts. I don't have a problem with that. What's important is just that rules and ordinances are applied fairly. If we start conferring special advantages through special contracts, that's a different issue.

Trevor Tkach, Executive Director of National Cherry Festival: The size and scope of NCF does not fit in a parks policy. We need a special contract for the protection of the city and to define all services and properties needed from the city. All of the high impact events in the Open Space Park are very different. It's hard to have a policy that is one-size-fits-all.

The Ticker: Which areas of the proposed events policy changes should commissioners consider being flexible/most compromising on? Which areas should they be firmest/least compromising on?
Michael Estes: Noise is the number one complaint from our residents and for that reason needs to be firmly addressed. The spacing or number of events is more flexible but our residents demand occasional quiet and the natural enjoyment of our Open Space.

Seamus Shinners, Central Neighborhood Association President: The city should not be flexible in establishing a rental fee that is higher. The city should set a cap on overall attendance for events...(and) should not allow for (events on) major holidays.

Sam Porter: By industry standards, a C-weighted noise ordinance scale would destroy not only our events but likely everyone else's. The proposed fees are (also) 300-500% higher. At those rates, the only groups who will be able to afford rent will be big corporations...you'll price out local event organizers.

Brad Van Dommelen: I feel the proposed cost structure is too high. Also, making event producers responsible for cleanup outside of the space they are renting...is putting excessive costs on the event for issues that should be essential city services. I think restricting events on our holiday weekends is (also) unnecessary – especially Independence Day.

Jered Ottenwess: The clearest direction the commission's had seems to be on the allowable frequency of events and a need to increase fees. It looks like they'll move forward with those changes. More of an open question is how we'll handle trash. I think the commission will be flexible with that issue, as well as the noise ordinance.

Jim Carruthers: There are some things we could do on a trial basis, like restricting the number of events. In terms of noise...I live downtown and the fact is we're an urban center and noise is going to happen. Entertainment is noisy; life in a city is noisy. The question on all of these issues comes down to: What do we want for our town? What kind of place do we want Traverse City to be? That's really what we have to figure out as we go through this process.