Some further comments, and a thanks for your support!

Wow. As of the time I'm writing this, the petition I started on something of a whim now has 45 signees, which is approximately 43 more than I ever expected to gather. Thanks so much for supporting! I wanted to address a few of the critiques about the petition I've received - because what would anything in or about an AAG meeting be without critique? Overall, the main critique was: this is impossible, so shut up. Open your minds, people! This petition, with limited expectations of impact, was drawn to represent one possible solution (new cities) to the problem (lack of access to AAG driven by escalating costs). The overall point is: cost for participation is too damn high. Changing cities is one idea, but I'm certainly open to any others that lower costs to be more inclusive. If the current model isn't working for a large portion of our discipline because of costs, so it's time to change that model. Now, some sub-critiques of that overarching theme. Critique 1: "Moving to other cities is impossible because of the size of the AAG meeting and the need for more break out rooms." I understand that a meeting of 8,000 people has some pretty extreme needs. But, I also think we're limiting ourselves by proposing only meetings in large cities based on a hotel-convention infrastructure. Why not reschedule the meeting to a summer date and hold it on a large university campus in a large city (UM in Minneapolis, OSU in Columbus, UA in Tucson, etc)? There would be plenty of classrooms and other facilities available for the sessions; plus, a potential for using vacant dormitory space as ad hoc hostels for attendees. Critique 2: "Smaller cities make travel more expensive." Okay, they can. But I would hope that any attempt to move the meeting elsewhere would seek balance with other cost factors. Then again, flying to Seattle, for instance, would require three layovers and about $750 from the departure city where I'd be flying. Destination is not the only factor here. Critique 3: "I would NEVER attend an AAG in (name of disrespected city) because I wouldn't pay money to visit there and no one else would either, and that would make the AAG lose money and attendance." This is perhaps the most frustrating one of all. I have two answers to this: 1) we're *geographers* and if ANYONE should be expected to be able to enjoy obscure conference cities, it's OUR DISCIPLINE. It's pretty spatially elitist, and damn shallow of us, to write off perfectly good cities for conferences (say, Cleveland or Detroit) because they don't fit our personal aesthetics, climatological preferences or desire for a sexy destination. 2) I don't use conventions as an opportunity to take a vacation or holiday, I go to learn, work, network and enrich myself - to do anything else is a misuse of the funds paid for it. Sure, I'll do my share of sight-seeing wherever we go, but to me, this is an investment no matter who's footing the bill, my employer or myself. Besides, I'd rather have the freedom to choose my own vacation destination separate from wherever AAG decided three years ago to host its meeting. Critique 4: "no matter what we do, it's going to be expensive so shut up." I reject this flatly. New cities may not be the answer, but the answer is out there. The AAG should be more actively looking for other answers, and if the current convention model isn't adaptable to one with lower costs, perhaps it's time to blow up that model and start over. Already, we should be recording, webcasting and saving every presentation to provide access to folks who can't attend. Maybe we alternate between a gigantic conference with these logistical issues one year, then switch to two "super-regional" conferences the next. Maybe the AAG begins chartering airplanes from various regional airports, or provides bus-pooling from regional points. There are ways to make this more affordable and less divisive between the "haves" and "have nots," we just need to think more about it. Anyway, I know this probably more than I needed to spell out, but hopefully this clarifies for detractors what the goal with this petition is. Thanks again for supporting, sharing and working to fix this problem!