While there are enough unhappy people to quote in an article, there's no evidence a majority of the townspeople object, either as a superficial gut reaction, or

While there are enough unhappy people to quote in an article, there's no evidence a majority of the townspeople object, either as a superficial gut reaction, or after deliberate consideration of all costs and benefits. For the duration of the current officeholders' terms, decisions about such use of public space have been delegated to them. Unless those officeholders have done something corrupt or illegal – which does not seem to be alleged – then the residents can choose new management at the next election. I kind of doubt they will. As long as cleanup is thorough, the lingering impact is all good: money and more visitors next high season. Even the opportunity to have had something to "rail against", and get quoted in the NYTimes as a rural local, was a positive. (I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that locals have exaggerated their respective positions to obtain marginally more media coverage about the "real town" from the event.)