To Flame vs. Playa Bike Repair

[BBadger]

So over in this thread, and in a PM, Schtev makes the observation that Playa Bike Repair (PBR) is a commercial operation that in many ways follows the same model as To Flame. After some thinking, I'd like some clarity and consistency on this issue, and I'm willing to open up cans of worms to get to it.

I am not diametrically opposed to commercial operations operating on the periphery of the Burning Man event, especially if they provide a useful service, and help alleviate resource utilization. To Flame reduces the number of cars entering and exiting the event, and PBR reduces the number of bikes that need to be transported by attendees, reducing inspection wait times, discarded bikes post-event, and consolidating transportation resources. Both are benefits to everyone on the playa whether the services are used or not.

There are distinctions between the two operations: To Flame transports human cargo along with luggage, and Playa Bike Repair transports bikes. Still, if we consider both cargo, the operation of these two entities aren't all that different: customers pre-pay for the service, and it is rendered on the playa as a delivery (for PBR you pick up your bike at their camp after you arrive). Both companies have also not hidden their status as a commercial service, or the methods by which they render their service on-playa.

It is my understanding that commercial entities operating at BRC are required to have BLM permits, and permission to operate from BMOrg. To Flame claims to have a BLM permit (though probably not in this time frame), but even assuming that they do, they have been explicitly refused entry by BMOrg. However, PBR, to my knowledge, does not even have a BLM permit to operate within BRC, nor has BMOrg made any explicit references to PBR's operations, even though silence may be tacit approval. Despite that, PBR is still an obvious commercial entity, in much the same way as To Flame. If PBR does not have a BLM permit, their commercial operations should be considered illegal.

Does BMOrg have an obligation to police such permit violations? I also realize that PBR might just be flying under the radar, and also hasn't stirred up shit. The most glaring issue with To Flame is how they have "mishandled" the situation of their declared refused entry by BMOrg by misleading its customers by pretending that they will be granted entry -- BLM permit or not -- to the event. They are also making declarations that they can effectively force their way into the event with that BLM permit, which is entirely untrue. The latter issue may be the major reason on the BMOrg side that To Flame has been explicitly refused entry.

Still, I'd like some clarity and consistency on the issue. Does this come down mostly to an issue of BMOrg simply disliking To Flame's operations where PBR hasn't drawn their ire? Does PBR, in fact, have a BLM permit? There is also a large grey area with respect to transactions that happen on-playa, even if companies haven't been set up to facilitate them. Could To Flame simply attempt to fly under the radar, much like I assume PBR does, and claim that an unbranded bus of attendees are just working together to consolidate resources?

[theCryptofishist]

I have only one thing to offer, and I don't think it adds any clarity. Busses must also be insured, and maybe even permitted by state or federal DOT. To me that certainly creates a gap between the two services, and then if there's a fiery crash that kills a bus load of burners (oh! the irony!) we all morn. If it's a truck load of bikes, than everyone who was depending on those is pissed. Even if a couple of camp mates of PBR die, it's not the same magnitude.

[VultureChow]

Hmmm.. My understanding is that PBR is more similar to say the Green Tortoise as a vendor. They provide a commercial service in the city, but maintain an active camp while inside. So, yes they deliver a bike to the playa that you have reserved or shipped with them, but they have shade, offer bike repairs to community, etc.

Not unlike the various "container camps" that enable us more distant burners to get stuff to the playa.

To Flame does not operate an on playa service or camp. They literally drop you off and leave. In fact, all of the complaints last year seem to stem from this simple fact. With no active burners or on playa presence, they are completely unable to handle a change in their plans.

[mdmf007]

Where do we draw the line?

Bus service ?
Bike Rental off playa
Bike Rental on playa, but paid for off playa and delivered to playa
Private poopers in your camp?
RV pump out servce
Water?
Ice?
Coffee?
Tea?
Generator service?
Showers?
Sleeping quarters?
On Playa RV Delivery and setup / tear down?
Fireworks Shows?
Rented Art Cars?
Catering Services?
Chartered aircraft flights?
Helicopters to fly you in and out to avoid the drive either way?
Kitchens, but your camp provides the labor?
Whole turn key camps?

All of these services are and have been provided for more than a decade on playa. So there is nothing new, i see this as an old issue coming to light now.

[BBadger]

Yeah, you're right that commercial businesses are nothing new; I'm not disputing that. Like I said before: I'm not opposed to commercial entities providing services, and in fact see many not as a necessary evil, but a benefit. What I'm asking is: why is To Flame being singled out?

Also, I don't think having a camp on-playa is a meaningful qualification that should enable a company to operate on-playa. After all, the shipping-container delivery companies don't stay on-playa either with a camp. Given the backlash against "Plug-and-Play" companies it would also seem that a simple bus-transport service would also be welcome. Plus, reducing the number of vehicles that use the roads is always a benefit and could even contribute to raising the population caps that are dependent on road use.

If the current problems with To Flame are that they did not properly file for a BLM permit this year, then by all means, they should be denied. However, from what I surmise, BMOrg would not allow them in even if they had all their permits in order. There's some bad-blood or something going on here. The next question I have is: will they be permitted to operate next year if they get their ducks in a row?

[lemur]

dont forget the singling out of KRUG for not playing by the dumb rules of burning man... which could have easily been resolved by a post-event letter about their policy and an agreement to share in some funds or a direct request for cash..

lotsa other folks have done the same exact thing, i.e. do a for-profit photo shoot at burning man..

Goodell said the LLC's standard agreement calls for all filmmakers to either pay a set site fee or a percentage of the profits. "It's standard in all of the agreements to pay a site fee," Goodell said, noting that the LLC recently charged Vogue Magazine $150,000 to do a photo shoot during the event.

it just seems that on some topics the organizers of burning man employ a buncha passive aggressive power struggle BS... its not so much they are against what happens.. you just have to do it how they want it done, and no other way or else.. you get shunned.

as larry harvey called for when the krug thing happened:

"Any community has two ways of dealing with such affronts to a shared ethos: shaming and shunning. [...] it’s how communities self-regulate" -larry harvey himself


yeah, cuz that kinda shit totally works

[lemur]

(and it doesnt seem to be all that much shared, larry... its only seemingly against this so-called 'shared ethos' of decommodification if they dont pay yer damned site fees, then its some crap we need to warn the community about.. otherwise, its fuckin hoyle and OK! and totally not against our community)

[lemur]

WOW a whole lot of crickets.. i guess its more fun to discuss how people in RV's are yuckie and uhh.. talk about other junk

seems like this can of worm is stayin CLOSED!


....anyways..

It is my understanding that commercial entities operating at BRC are required to have BLM permits, and permission to operate from BMOrg.

Does BMOrg have an obligation to police such permit violations?

correct,they are required to have permits from the BLM and BRC (this is a technical requirement of the law (as per 43 C.F.R. § 2932.11 (source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2004-t ... rt2930.pdf ) , and as with many things in life.. people frequently ignore them.. but if ya want to be pedantic about it, YES, its required)

on the second question, YES in 2013 black rock city LLC does have an obligation to police this

(lets go off on a tangent related to this question)

the BLM beefed up the wording in the 2013 stipulations which may have allowed some open interpretation of what constituted 'commercial activity' in 2012, and earlier,.. if there has been any change this year related to how the organizers of burning man handle commercial stuff.. its likely related to certain entities involved trying to, shall we say, apply some radical-interpretation of the stipulations

see here:

before this years event the permits said this., with parts bolded by me that may be able to be radically-interpreted for the benefit of the LLC and "under the radar" operations, ..this is the entire provision in the stipulations for commercial activity prior to 2013..:

12. Commercial activities are prohibited within BRC, unless specifically authorized in advance
by the BLM and BRC. BRC will inform BLM representatives of unauthorized commercial
operations discovered at the event and the corrective actions being implemented within a
reasonable time of learning about the activities. This includes but is not limited to
commercial film production, photography, food services or other independent commercial
ventures not affiliated with BRC.

basically, if you radically-interpret that section.. in the past, it was up to BRC LLC alone to police the issue, and 'commercial activities' was never defined in the stipulations themselves..(of course, its not BRC's job to enforce 43 C.F.R. § 2932.5 ..unless, of course, they are told to do so). so if BRC didnt 'discover' any wrongdoing, it amazingly, didnt get reported! ...and if they do find a bad guy, brc LLC got to make up its own punishment! woot!

this is what it looks like in 2013.. (with radically-uninterpretable items bolded)

Commercial use is prohibited within the Black Rock City closure area unless specifically
authorized by BRC and the BLM. Commercial use is defined by 43 C.F.R. § 2932.5, and
includes, but is not limited to, commercial film production, food services, waste disposal,
recreational/trailer rental and/or air carrier services. BRC and BLM will monitor all
commercial operators entering the event via the Point 1 Gate and the Airport through the
Outside Services (OSS) and Airport (AIR) programs.

A. Prior to the event:
i. BRC shall notify all potential OSS and AIR operators in writing that they
must obtain a BLM Special Recreation Permit (SRP) in order to enter into
contract with BRC.

ii. BRC shall also provide the BLM with a list of all potential OSS and AIR
operators that BRC recommends be granted a BLM SRP to operate at the
event.

iii. The BLM will immediately notify BRC if any recommended OSS and
AIR operators do not meet the BLM’s SRP requirements at 43 C.F.R. §
2932 and cannot be authorized to operate on public lands during the event.

iv. BRC will immediately notify the BLM if BRC terminates any authorized
OSS or AIR operator’s contract/agreement.

v. BRC will describe the procedure for BRC and BLM coordination of
authorizing OSS and AIR operators in the 2013 BRC Operating Plan.

B. During the event:
i. BRC shall require all authorized OSS and AIR operators to display
identification as proof of their authorization to operate at the event by
BRC and the BLM.

ii. Any OSS and AIR operators must show proof of their SRP within a
reasonable amount of time when asked by authorized BLM and BRC
personnel, as required by the Closure Order(s).

iii. BRC will inform the BLM’s Event Project Manager of unauthorized OSS
and AIR operators discovered at the event.

iv. Any OSS and AIR operators found operating unpermitted by BRC and/or
the BLM at the event will be found to be noncompliance and will face
eviction and/or citations for noncompliance with 43 C.F.R. § 2932

WOW that sure is a big change from last year!!!

lets look at that one a bit closer...

#1.. the BLM has defined what commercial use is in the stipulations.. this cant be openly interpreted and they risk violating their permit for allowing 'under the radar' operations which existed through their own interpretation of what 'commercial' meant

#2 its not only up to BRC LLC to police commercial activity now.... the BLM is involved too!, and also.. the BLM isnt to be, as in 2012, informed of "corrective actions being implemented" the punishment is laid out nice and clear.. anyone found in non compliance by the BLM or BRC will face eviction or citation..... the LLC cannot impose a hand slap for a punishment anymore

#3 everyone is documented! and must have a special recreation permit.. and must display and omg the horror!

(OUCH MY LOOPHOLE HURTS)

ok end of that tangent

PBR, to my knowledge, does not even have a BLM permit to operate within BRC, nor has BMOrg made any explicit references to PBR's operations, even though silence may be tacit approval. Despite that, PBR is still an obvious commercial entity, in much the same way as To Flame. If PBR does not have a BLM permit, their commercial operations should be considered illegal.

you are correct! if they do not have a proper SRP permit they should be considered illegal, as per the 2013 stipulations above.. and now its displayed in public.. go find the permit! if they dont have it, you can totally tell mom!

The most glaring issue with To Flame is how they have "mishandled" the situation of their declared refused entry by BMOrg by misleading its customers by pretending that they will be granted entry -- BLM permit or not -- to the event. They are also making declarations that they can effectively force their way into the event with that BLM permit, which is entirely untrue. The latter issue may be the major reason on the BMOrg side that To Flame has been explicitly refused entry.

we are unlikely to ever know the full story on this one.. you can bet there is all kinds of juicy gossip about it.. and i doubt much of it has to do with mishandling of the PR on the part of to-flame.... who was, like it or not, trying to stand up against BRC LLC with its formidable social reach ( this forum, their huge many hundred thousand person jack rabbit speaks email, their facebook page with 400,000+ likes.... their blog.... etc)

Still, I'd like some clarity and consistency on the issue. Does this come down mostly to an issue of BMOrg simply disliking To Flame's operations where PBR hasn't drawn their ire?

i doubt youll find any clarity on the situation of consistency as it relates to commerce at burning man because, by and large, there is none.... basically we only hear about the EVIL COMMERCE when someone doesn't play by the rules set up by the LLC.. otherwise they quietly collect cash for all kinds of stuff.. like the 'SITE FEES' mentioned above my LLC the board member of 150,000$ for a photo shoot at the event ....

YES i bet it totally does come down to simply disliking something that happened, or.. a power struggle/passive aggressive BS.. as i said, i dont think we will ever truly know the details of what happened.. but my guess is: DRAMA!

Does PBR, in fact, have a BLM permit?

im not sure.. in 2012 the BLM listed some vendor permits relating to RV and Aircraft vendors... im sure there were probably dozens of vendors in other categories, but ive not seen anything relating to them: (source for rv thing https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/pr ... endors.pdf ) ..maybe in 2014 we will see the 2013 vendors list

or.. maybe, you can get the list from the BLM itself! (i mean, this is all public and stuff now)

There is also a large grey area with respect to transactions that happen on-playa, even if companies haven't been set up to facilitate them.

i think that gray area is gone, at least on the pedantic 'omg the law is the law' level.. commercial use is well defined in the law that the burning man stipulations have.. and if they arent keen on jeopordizing their permit.. they are likely wont to abide by it.

Could To Flame simply attempt to fly under the radar, much like I assume PBR does, and claim that an unbranded bus of attendees are just working together to consolidate resources?

not legally, a careful reading of what constitutes commercial use will forbid this on the BLM side and BRC LLC will forbid it on the 'nut uh you didnt play by the rules!' side.

(edit: omg damned quote boxes are hard to do sometimes)

[lemur]

Where do we draw the line?

Bus service ?
Bike Rental off playa
Bike Rental on playa, but paid for off playa and delivered to playa
Private poopers in your camp?
RV pump out servce
Water?
Ice?
Coffee?
Tea?
Generator service?
Showers?
Sleeping quarters?
On Playa RV Delivery and setup / tear down?
Fireworks Shows?
Rented Art Cars?
Catering Services?
Chartered aircraft flights?
Helicopters to fly you in and out to avoid the drive either way?
Kitchens, but your camp provides the labor?
Whole turn key camps?

All of these services are and have been provided for more than a decade on playa. So there is nothing new, i see this as an old issue coming to light now.

i think you kind of misunderstood the question.

it wasnt "DOES COMMERCE HAPPEN AT BURNING MAN?" (we all know it does.. we'll pay something like 20,000,000 in tickets to them each year! from now on HAH )


its "are they applying any consistency to this issue of commerce? ...who is in charge of this shit anyways?"

[Elderberry]

I think it's like pornography. It can't be defined, but you know it when you see it.

[PatrySeema]

I don't think having a camp on-playa is a meaningful qualification that should enable a company to operate on-playa.

[Lord Of Ruin]

Yeah, you're right that commercial businesses are nothing new; I'm not disputing that. Like I said before: I'm not opposed to commercial entities providing services, and in fact see many not as a necessary evil, but a benefit. What I'm asking is: why is To Flame being singled out?

Also, I don't think having a camp on-playa is a meaningful qualification that should enable a company to operate on-playa. After all, the shipping-container delivery companies don't stay on-playa either with a camp. Given the backlash against "Plug-and-Play" companies it would also seem that a simple bus-transport service would also be welcome. Plus, reducing the number of vehicles that use the roads is always a benefit and could even contribute to raising the population caps that are dependent on road use.

If the current problems with To Flame are that they did not properly file for a BLM permit this year, then by all means, they should be denied. However, from what I surmise, BMOrg would not allow them in even if they had all their permits in order. There's some bad-blood or something going on here. The next question I have is: will they be permitted to operate next year if they get their ducks in a row?

Some additional info that might help: ToFlame/Burner Express is a bit differnt than other vendors. A more apt comparison would be USS. There are services the Org wants to partner with as a core function of the event. Mass transit has moved into that space; ToFlame was more of a "yea, it's there if you want it....hope you like it." They were allowed to buy vendor passes and do their business (more like tow trucks, etc.)

But the Org is moving into a "Hey, can we make a mass transit option that's actually PREFERABLE to driving for some significant portion of the population?" Think about how many theme camps have a core group setup, then the bulk of the group comes in pairs in different vehicles.

Once they started working out these details, and contacting ToFlame about participating, it became apparent that ToFlame's (you pick what you believe) track record, business model, pricing, ability to scale (my personal belief), level of professionalism just wasn't there. From the threads on Reddit, it's clear that a number of these concerns were warranted just from looking at their behavior.

FWIW, it was a pretty great choice. I had a friend take BE this year and it was flawless. They jumped on a well organized bus in the Reno airpot, were able to chat, listen to music, drink (alcohol) as you watch the desert slip by in the giant windows...and arrived right smack dab in the center of BRC about 3 hours later.