Does anybody remember the exact date when it became the civic duty of all Penticton and area residents to wholeheartedly support any activity, however distasteful, to boost the marginal income of motel owners, booze purveyors and fast food joints?

Before chambers of commerce effectively took control of the civic matters of our towns, supply and demand and the common sense of citizens prevailed.  If a hotel was needed – one was built, along with a bar and restaurant if the need was felt and prospective clientele were in place.

Now, however, under the aegis of the chambers (however grandiloquently named), whose only economic beliefs are growth is good, and bigger is better, motels are built, drinking emporiums opened, and the effort must be made by all to make and keep them viable.

Such was the case with controversial Boonstock.  The owner of the for-profit organization aped the chamber spokesman’s platitudes about the city, economic benefits for all, and, of course, future growth courtesy of the unbounded enthusiasm by the revellers who will doubtlessly come to live in our pristine area.  There would be no city or provincial involvement because the event would be held on Indian land and no financial expenses by either civic group would be involved.  Didn’t work out that way though did it?

Unless of course Boonstock, the chamber, or the reassuring spokesperson pays the hospital bills for the intensive care treatments and other medical costs incurred by the alarming number of self-induced drug and alcohol overdoses.

No doubt city hall will also be reimbursed for the countless necessary hours worked by paid city senior staff and less visible but very real employee physical involvement.

At first it seemed, owing to the non-stop insistence of the promoters and spokesmen, that because a liquor licence was an absolute necessity to ensure event success, the event was actually a festival for alcoholics.  Not the case however. Drugs took centre stage as the central concern, and this raises a more general and more worrisome concern.  If nearly 8,000 people attended and many took drugs to alter their perception of the entertainment offered, how many young people doped for the first time? How many of this number will continue use to the point of social uselessness?  How many of the festival’s converts will become a real social burden for the rest of us to shoulder?  Will it be worth it for the few extra beds, drinks and burgers sold on an otherwise busy weekend? This was something for council to think about!

Predictably the show featured some vulgar moments and a minority shirtless lowbrow element graced our retail establishments long enough to elicit marked discomfit among our more thoughtful and generally senior regular patrons.

City officials, and especially the chamber of commerce, should recognize that each transitory, disruptive, uncomfortable or harmful money grubbing endeavour takes some of the grace and ambiance of our city down another notch, not to mention the potential harm to our easily led youth.

It  is time for them to consider the long term effects on an otherwise agreeable city.  Let the print media reconsider its unequivocal endorsement of every commercial event and the tendency to belittle thoughtful and constructive critics.

One can only salute the courage and wisdom of councillor Robinson for her prescient concern and her refusal to follow the full-throated pack of followers who blindly promote unhelpful schemes for a few more retail dollars.

Endorsement of socially harmful events would seem to resemble a milder form of someone pimping his sister.