Re: [jtholmes] BASE jumping banned in twin falls
jtholmes wrote:
nope wrong.
un namned post. unfounded claims. silly base jumpers over reacting to rumors.
JT and Tom are both right.
It is indeed important to maintain proper perspective about anonymous, unfounded rumors, and not get all in a tizzy about them such that it "show(s) lack of confidence" in the legitimacy of BASE jumping and "may even plant seeds as though banning is an option..."
JT's general concern is spot-on and should be heeded, and FYI for some of the newer folks on this forum, JT has a very good handle on this drill: Check out the work he did on "60 Minutes" a few years back; it is a Grade AAA, textbook example of how to talk to media and how to present BASE jumping and its practitioners as serious athletes and serious people who just happen to do something very dangerous for fun. In the 34 years I have been BASE jumping, I have never seen anyone do it better than JT did on "60 Minutes." For anyone who may end up talking to media about BASE sometime, that segment should be required viewing on how to do it right.
That said, Tom did exactly what a good political operator does in a case like this. First off, Twin Falls politics is "retail politics" -- basically, all the players know each other personally and are on a first-name basis. The council members are very approachable and this sort of "casual channel" communication is how a
lot of things get done in retail political environments (as opposed to the "wholesale politics" that occurs in larger political units, where it's physically and technically impossible to deal one-on-one on every issue).
Second, maintaining continuing relationships is a critical part of successful retail politics. In this case, Tom is not some unknown jumper calling people he doesn't know to wonder if the council is really going to ban BASE jumping. In this case, Tom knows them, they know Tom, and they're all following "best practices" to deal with potential issues before they become real issues. Remember, too, that Tom also goes to these same people periodically with "good news" about events, charity fundraisers, etc. In short, he stays in touch with them routinely and regularly.
Third, these best practices result in the long-voiced adage to "nip the problem in the bud" before it has a chance to flower. In this case, we learn that nothing is going on. We also have a chance to learn, through Tom's inquiry, whether there may indeed be anything bubbling below the surface that needs to be addressed. For example, let's say Tom talks to those people to knock down the rumor. Let's say also that while the rumor is way out of whack with reality, there has been some grumbling from somebody somewhere about something the jumpers are doing. If that was the case, Tom's inquiry then provides an opening for a council person to mention this to him, and he can take that information back to the community and maybe start a process that nips a potential problem in the bud.
And everyone has a stake in intelligently managing BASE jumping in Twin because, as JT also rightly points out, the "fact of the matter (is) that BASE in twin is good for business/city revenue. BASE accidents in Twin Falls are even better for business/city revenue. Ambulances, Hospitals, doctors, scanners, nurses.. it all costs money."
If we work together with the Twin Falls political and business establishment, "BASE will never die in Twin Falls." If, however, we neglect the relationships and ignore the proven processes of Retail Politics 101, then that may not be the case. So good on ya, Tom, for your work, and good on ya, JT, for keeping it real.
44
