New rules not a hit with all concert-goers

Some grumbled at the new rules, some took them in stride, one family even brought their dog -- a tradition, they said -- but in the end, the debut show of the Alive@Five con cert series drew hundreds of people to Columbus Park. Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Santo Subito

North Brunswick, NJ

#22 Jun 26, 2009
How about two dollars for minors, and 5 dollars for everyone over 21. Everyone has to wear a bracelet and police can easily identify those with alcohol.

Downtown is the place to be! Columbus park restaurants and bars need the business.
FiveAtAlive

Bronx, NY

#23 Jun 26, 2009
Yes, five bucks is not that bad. But also, these concerts were created to bring people to downtown Stamford. Remember what the downtown was like 15 years ago? And businesses must spend money to make money.
They obviously have to do something because of the popularity of the concerts. But I miss the old days when there was less security and it had more of that laid back Stamford atmosphere. But I guess those days are gone.
L Bow Marconi

Norwalk, CT

#24 Jun 26, 2009
Vox Pop wrote:
<quoted text>
Your point of view is correct.
However, the series is not supported by citizens' tax dollars. The DSSD lost a lot of corporate backing; and its income is derived from a special tax override it collects from downtown building owners (not city-wide).
Got it. I see on the DSSD site that, as of last year's report, they're funded "primarily by 126 property owners who pay an annual fee to the District based upon their property assessments... in addition, a significant portion of the DSSD's program income is derived through sponsorships."

54.3% from assessments, 41.5% from sponsorships, 3.9% grants, 0.3% interest.

It gets spent 47% on marketing and event promotion, 24.7% operations, clean, safe & green, 21% general admin, 7.3% retail and economic development.

I would have no problem with the concerts if their cost were entirely paid from sponsorships. But expecting downtown owners to pay for everyone else's entertainment doesn't seem right.

A concert series is a luxury, one in which most citizens can enjoy partially (at least 1 concert) if they choose and I'd prefer to see them come up for vote on the public ballot every four years. "Do you want a special tax of X% to be assessed solely for the purpose of the DSSD Concert Series, for which Stamford residents will pay no entrance fee?" or X minus something and have a small cover charge, etc..
Iron Sheik

Baltimore, MD

#25 Jun 26, 2009
With lots of the riff raff gone, I may actually go to "Alive at Five" now. Good job Stamford.
Miguel of Stamford

United States

#26 Jun 26, 2009
Hey Matt Vallee of Norwalk: go tell your city to hold a free concert series.
Vox Pop

Wolcott, CT

#27 Jun 26, 2009
The Banned One wrote:
<quoted text>
From the look of the website http://www.stamford-downtown.com/index.php... , it seems that each venue has multiple sponsors. So explain to me why the $5.00 cover.
DSSD Director was recently quoted as saying sponsorship loss was around 30%. The cover was in part to offset that loss, and in part to impose some control over the event (note last year's rowdyism, etc.).
Vox Pop

Wolcott, CT

#28 Jun 26, 2009
L Bow Marconi wrote:
<quoted text>
Got it. I see on the DSSD site that, as of last year's report, they're funded "primarily by 126 property owners who pay an annual fee to the District based upon their property assessments... in addition, a significant portion of the DSSD's program income is derived through sponsorships."
54.3% from assessments, 41.5% from sponsorships, 3.9% grants, 0.3% interest.
It gets spent 47% on marketing and event promotion, 24.7% operations, clean, safe & green, 21% general admin, 7.3% retail and economic development.
I would have no problem with the concerts if their cost were entirely paid from sponsorships. But expecting downtown owners to pay for everyone else's entertainment doesn't seem right.
A concert series is a luxury, one in which most citizens can enjoy partially (at least 1 concert) if they choose and I'd prefer to see them come up for vote on the public ballot every four years. "Do you want a special tax of X% to be assessed solely for the purpose of the DSSD Concert Series, for which Stamford residents will pay no entrance fee?" or X minus something and have a small cover charge, etc..
That's a different kettle of fish. In effect, the DSSD is a feifdom, an entity unto itself. If you own a building within its boundary, you're paying, period. That's the way our city fathers set it up. It really answers to no one in local government. Its stated goal is to enhance and promote its constituent area. As far as its goal setting and operations go, I am not a downtown property owner, and cannot really comment on how fairly, wisely or well it allocates its resources. However, I must say that most reactions to its efforts seem positive.
L Bow Marconi

Norwalk, CT

#29 Jun 26, 2009
I appreciate the info, Vox. thanks.
Stamford Resident

Stamford, CT

#30 Jun 26, 2009
The Alive @ 5 series is great. The problems are:
The area is too small for the crowds they got last year.
Underage drinkers.
Rowdy attendees.
DSSD losing corporate sponsorship.

Suggestions:

Cover Charges - will reduce the number of people attending and cover additional expenses incurred by the DSSD. Done.

Limit the number of attendees: Just like stadium, limit the number of people who can enter the area. Sell tickets ($5) in advance. You won't have overcrowding and you will be able to control the crowd size.

Ban all those under 21: That will eliminate the underage drinking. Maybe not practical, but something to think about.

Move the venue: Probably can't do that because there is no place within the DSSD district that is any larger.

Stop Alive @ Five altogether: This will eliminate everyone's complaining about the rules.
goove on

Rocky Hill, CT

#31 Jun 26, 2009
maybe you could hum a few bars?
Ex Tiernans Patron

Norwalk, CT

#32 Jun 26, 2009
I'll pay $5 for the crowd last night. No underage kids who can't handle their liquor running around.

Here's my one complaint: Tiernan's. They were running an absolute scam last night. At their back door they were telling people that if they paid $5 they would have "access to the park." Just to be clear, in order to get a bracelet that enables you to have a beer outside, you must first buy a ticket at the entrance then proceed to get a bracelet with that ticket.
Tiernan's led people to believe that the $5 paid at the door could be used in place of the ticket at the door. In essence, they were promising a short cut in for people when it was actually just a cover for Tiernan's OR a shortcut through Tiernan's to a place where you couldn't drink. You would need to pay another $5 for this ticket to get the bracelet.

We told the organizers at the front of this scam (they were well aware of it) and I hope Tiernan's changes their ways for the upcoming Alive at 5 concerts.
Great time

Paterson, NJ

#34 Jun 26, 2009
We were there, five bucks for a GREAT show, no problem.

But there was still a large group of underage kids drinking under the big tree, but the were well behaved.

Smash mouth stoping the concert to throw out a jerk throwing water bottles, Priceless.

This year unlike the past years, we did not take a table at a resturant, we end up spending too much money. I did not seem to be hurting the resturants and we had a great time for very little money.
Absurdity

Bellmore, NY

#35 Jun 26, 2009
I for one do not disagree with the 5 dollar fee. It is extremely reasonable. I think that the lines were a bit out of control, perhaps once they get the rhythm going it will be better. Also...

The whole Kids after 6:30 rule really makes no sense at all, they will just be there earlier.

Better control at the entrance by the police would be a more effective way.

Either way, I think the fee makes sense, the concert was extremely enjoyable.
alixrichar

Copiague, NY

#36 Jun 26, 2009
Seaside Johnny wrote:
It's always a negative spin with the Advocate.$5 to see major recording acts is a great deal, give me a break. Is Subway out of line for charging $5 for their subs?
Same thing for the underage issue. They could of just said under 18 not admitted at all. Just get there before 6:30 and stop your whining!
Thanks to a..hole mayor malloy.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Norfolk Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Travel ban lifted in Berkshire, nearby counties... Jan 28 Praxis33 3
Memory of Malcolm X Returns to Boston in Prison... Jan 24 Taajsgpm 2
Tom Brady knew of deflated football Jan 23 Insider 1
Store owner shuts doors owing thousands to cons... (Feb '09) Dec '14 BobS 23
Review: Asia Treasures (Mar '09) Dec '14 BrianEd 3
Discrimination at Franklin Hair Salon (Nov '06) Dec '14 wake up 60
Boston to Wrentham Limo Service 02116 Oct '14 Limo Service 02116 1

Winter Storm Watch for Norfolk County was issued at January 31 at 11:03AM EST

Norfolk News Video

Norfolk Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Norfolk People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:26 am PST