Jump to content
SailAway

Glamis Vendors In Trouble

Recommended Posts

Is GBS still for sale?  I'll buy a few $1,000 shares to start a co-op...about a thousand people with me? icon_biggrin.gif

967626[/snapback]

bandit.gif

thumb.gif I'm in !!!!! thumb.gif

beer.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, thanks to my uncle making the most tasteless comment I've ever heard to the GBS owner's wife, we're both now banned permanently. rolleyes.gif

I wanna hear the comment, we are all adults ,tell us laughing.gif

I agree , GBS sux ass for sure but if the prices or the ATM fee are too much you can always head into Yuma,Blythe or Brawley.

I like BMV and Jeanie but you ever check her dates or notice the same beers from late in the season still there in Sept along with the Jerky,etc. Its not about bashing but BMV is hardly cheap or keeps fresh product,I wonder if it wasnt the favorite watering hole of many on here if she wouldnt be mentioned also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if it wasnt the favorite watering hole of many on here if she wouldnt be mentioned also.

968016[/snapback]

That's not entirely fair, since this thread isn't about bashing the private enterprises. If it was, perhaps BMV would be mentioned also... I don't know.

What this is about is a situation involving the vendors of vendor row in the north dunes, and here is a lot of speculation about what/who is pushing the BLM to get rid of or severely limit the vendors of vendor row in the north dunes... is BMV part of that speculation? Dunno. I haven't heard it mentioned in the same context as some of the other private enterprises.

Vicki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This raises a question in my mind.  Is the vendor coalition then proposng a different set of rules for the North and South?

967647[/snapback]

Grant, the issue that is the subject of this thread is pretty tightly focused on the vendors of vendor row in the north dunes. I think that's mostly because one of the biggest issues, eliminating vendor row vendors during the middle of the week, is a north dunes issue only.

But the possibility of limiting vendor inventory most certainly does involve the south dune vendors as well as the north dune vendors and so, like the first meeting, I am hoping to see some representation from the south dunes.

As for whether the coalition would propose a seperate set of rules? Can't imagine... it hasn't been mentioned.

Tuesday's meeting is a strategy session and information meeting. A brainstorming session to see where to go from here. If you feel that seperate rules for seperate areas is a good idea, you should bring it up on Tuesday.

Vicki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vicki,

as I said in my other post , GBS can kiss my arse and I strongly oppose restricting what can and cannot be sold by the other vendors, it honestly sounds as if the BLM is trying yet another tactic to try to push us out of our dunes pure and simple.

I mentioned on a side note while I have no problem with Jeanie or BMV ,just simply noted she also serves and sells out of date merchandise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not as big a deal in the south dunes because they already moved the vendors as far away from PAD as physically possible without removing them from Gordon's completely.

FWIW I know for a fact that PAD would like nothing more than to see the vendors gone completely - Lynn made that very clear to me on several ocasions when we were discussing the south dunes cleanup two years ago. The mere passing thought of maybe thinking about contacting the vendors to get them to support the clean-up got a reaction from Lynn that made the GBS people on their worst day seem downright plesant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason ,where do the Vendors set up in Gordons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason ,where do the Vendors set up in Gordons?

969087[/snapback]

Along the canal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason ,where do the Vendors set up in Gordons?

969087[/snapback]

Along the canal.

969144[/snapback]

Not being totally familiar with gordons is that within 3 miles of P.A.D.

and is there typically year round vendors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason ,where do the Vendors set up in Gordons?

969087[/snapback]

Along the canal.

969144[/snapback]

Still? I thought it had moved starting last year... or maybe the move was over to the canal? *shrug* I don't play in the south dunes very often and have only been to the vendor area once, years back.

Grant... you mention that magic "3 mile" number again and I just want to remind the readers that the "three mile zone" means nothing. It was something listed in the 1987 RAMP and has no basis in legislation. It should never have resurfaced in the business plan and when its inclusion was protested, no definitive answer was ever given (in spite of many promises) as to where it even originated.

It has no legislative or "official" bite.

Oh, and along those lines... someone mentioned above something about how this area allows overnight vending but no other area does (I'm paraphrasing, but I think that's the gist). That really is of no consequence here either, as rules and regulations vary from BLM site to BLM site. Superstition, for instance, does not allow burning of pallets, but the ISDRA does. Sand Mountain only just recently adopted the whip rule that the ISDRA has had for a long time.

So... could "they" decide suddenly to pull the mid-week vending, even if each and every BLM managed area allowed it? Sure they could.

But let's get back to the point...

WHY WOULD THEY?

Vicki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue boils down to this:

GBS doesn’t want any vender by them, and the venders don’t want to tear down and set-up.

The solution as far as the BLM is simple, If you really want to be by the store then put up with the tear down, if you don’t t,hen set up next to Gecko. But there lies the real problem there’s only 4 vender pads.

This issue would be almost defused if the BLM set-up another 10 vender pads next to Gecko.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This issue would be almost defused if the BLM set-up another 10 vender pads next to Gecko.

969460[/snapback]

bandit.gif

HELL NO !!!!! angryfire.gif If they are going to spend oor money on anything, spend it on making more pads for us to use. DAMN the vendors.... 25brdflick.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This issue would be almost defused if the BLM set-up another 10 vender pads next to Gecko.

969460[/snapback]

bandit.gif

HELL NO !!!!! angryfire.gif If they are going to spend oor money on anything, spend it on making more pads for us to use. DAMN the vendors.... 25brdflick.gif

969462[/snapback]

BLM can't make more PADs for any one until the RAMP is in place coocoo.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More Vender Pads next to Gecko is the only way I see it resolved, that way you'll have Gilmore’s "Main trailer" at Gecko all season long and "Mobil unit" for the weekends down by the row.

And sorry Vicky, the BLM has a responsibility to limit venders that would have a negative financial impact to local established business, as they should. Even to the detriment of the recreation user.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This issue would be almost defused if the BLM set-up another 10 vender pads next to Gecko.

969460[/snapback]

bandit.gif

HELL NO !!!!! angryfire.gif If they are going to spend oor money on anything, spend it on making more pads for us to use. DAMN the vendors.... 25brdflick.gif

969462[/snapback]

BLM can't make more PADs for any one until the RAMP is in place coocoo.gif

969470[/snapback]

Right.

Plus, vendor services/enhancements would be paid by the fees paid by the vendors, right?

Vicki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And sorry Vicky, the BLM has a responsibility to limit venders that would have a negative financial impact to local established business, as they should. Even to the detriment of the recreation user.

969486[/snapback]

Then please explain what I am missing.

Exactly how/why is it the government's job to protect a private enterprise?

Vicki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom,If someone as cool as yourself took over GBS and treated people fairly would we be having this conversation? BTW they are not the only ones that overcharge. Sweet marie wanted 49 bucks for a 5 gallon gas can. And It didnt even have a pour spout.

This may not have been you intention, but I will, in my mind, think you called me cool...

Your right. Many of the vendors are now starting to stick it to us. Once was the day when it was cheaper to buy goggles from Maries rather than a motorcycle shop. Not anymore. they are way over priced. I do not like what many vendors are doing to us. But I also dont like what BLM is doing the the vendors.

If everyone is allowed to compete, the customer wins. And honestly, if the store was resonably priced, sum-what friendly, and had normal hours of operation, no, we would not be having this conversation.

I do not support many of the vendors, I do not support GBS, CG's or BMV, I think they all have additude problems, but I do support (at this point in time) their right to co-exsist and their right to operate a business in what ever way they seem fit.

And I do have an issue with people blaming GBS and forgetting about BMV.

There own charter calls for Multiple use. Of which private property rights is one most likley an ingredient.

I dont know about this. Im not sure BLM which oversee's public land, has any say-so or by definition, is concerned with private property issues. I think multiple use pertains to the public land they oversee. Im not saying your wrong, just not sure your right.

967291[/snapback]

You read my intentions correctly.

With respect to the BLM I mean there mandate is to provide for multiple use with out infringing on Private Property owners rights.

967314[/snapback]

I don't think he was calling you "Cool" laughing.giflaughing.giflaughing.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And please also explain why they "should" they protect that private enterprise even to the detriment of the recreational community... again I hadn't realized profitability was a federally protected "right."

But of course... we haven't even gotten to the point where proof is being offered.

I'd love to see the proof that the private enterprises are being harmed by the presence of the vendors. Simply assuming their presence has harmed anyone's business is not logical. Limited hours of operation, scaring away potential customers, offending potential repeat clientele, and costs of goods to consumers would also play a role in how well a business will survive.

Vicki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And sorry Vicky, the BLM has a responsibility to limit venders that would have a negative financial impact to local established business, as they should. Even to the detriment of the recreation user.

969486[/snapback]

Then please explain what I am missing.

Exactly how/why is it the government's job to protect a private enterprise?

Vicki

969489[/snapback]

Not there job to "protect", but is there job not to hamper. And unless a vender "rents" on a yearly lease that’s bid on, is a temporary service and can be deemed preferential, giving an unfair competitive edge over Permanent business establishments

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not there job to "protect", but is there job not to hamper. And unless a vender "rents" on a yearly lease that’s bid on, is a temporary service and can be deemed preferential, giving an unfair competitive edge over Permanent business establishments

969506[/snapback]

I guess my disagreement is with it being the government's job to do anything.

If the GBS feels they have been harmed by the vendors, let them sue the vendors.

Ah... but that would require proof, now wouldn't it.

Vicki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say... isn't the "Burning Man" festival held on public land every year? And aren't there vendors there? And don't those vendors stay for the entire week without moving off and on every night? And don't those vendors sell stuff that overlaps with the "local" businesses?

Just wondering.

Vicki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not there job to "protect", but is there job not to hamper. And unless a vender "rents" on a yearly lease that’s bid on, is a temporary service and can be deemed preferential, giving an unfair competitive edge over Permanent business establishments

969506[/snapback]

Please point me to the regulation, law or code that supports this icon_biggrin.gif

Vicki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And please also explain why they "should" they protect that private enterprise even to the detriment of the recreational community... again I hadn't realized profitability was a federally protected "right."

969501[/snapback]

I know that seldom what’s right and wrong doesn’t jive with what’s legal, but the government should be held to a higher standard, and it is wrong for the government, by offering land on a temporary basis to one business enterprise, to compete with another neighboring similar permanent business.

Now make it a yearly lease requiring ongoing operation and your in. Or establish a “Buffer Zone”

But back to the point, more vender pads by Gecko could satisfy “most “of the issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hay dont' get me wrong I like the venders and would like them to stay as status quo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh oh Sandwizard... be careful... you're starting to sound like a Democrat icon_biggrin.gif

You are, absolutely, entitled to your opinion... and apparently it's shared by the private enterprises outside the dunes. But in my opinion it is not the BLM's job to make sure the private enterprises are turning a profit.

Now... there is a "condition" in the permit process that deals with price gouging. Wouldn't that cover the "unfair competition" issue? And as long as price is not the issue.. doesn't the business operator have the obligation to make their business attractive?

Or are you saying that no matter how a person runs their business they "deserve" the government making sure they are not harmed? I'm not just talking about the GBS... negative comments have been made about PAD, Boardmanville and even Clean Gene's.

Interesting theory. A business owner would never have to offer a fair value, good customer service, clean facilities, etc.

Vicki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Preview Post

More Links

©2001 GlamisDunes.com.
All rights reserved.

×
×
  • Create New...