The interior of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival's intimate Thomas Theatre in a round configuration.

The Oregon Shakespeare Festival’s recent appeal for support revealed the latest emergency in a string of financial crises that have beset the organization over the last 10 years.

The ongoing debate about internal and external root causes obscures this essential fact: No one in our community wants to see OSF fail.

I sincerely hope they raise the $2.5 million needed to keep their doors open in 2023, but what happens if they don’t? As OSF noted in its appeal, regional theaters across the U.S. are not recovering from pandemic lockdowns, as documented in American Theatre magazine last November.

Even if OSF recovers, it is unlikely that it will return to its previous size and scope.

At its height, OSF presented approximately 800 performances of 11 plays over a 10-month season, sold close to 400,000 tickets per year, and drew hundreds of thousands of visitors to Ashland. It employed more than 500 full- and part-time staff, many of whom paid rent, mortgages and taxes in Ashland and sent their kids to Ashland schools.

Those days are gone. The time has come to ask the hard question: What happens to Ashland if OSF closes its doors?

Let’s focus on two key considerations:

What will happen to OSF’s downtown Ashland campus? Most of the theaters and administrative buildings in Ashland are built on city-owned parkland that is leased back to OSF at a token sum.

Does that mean that the city owns the buildings? And, if they own the buildings, do they also own the internal infrastructure and equipment that was purchased, installed and maintained by OSF?

If the city owns the buildings, could they or another entity operate the campus as a performing arts center and lease spaces to local and touring performing groups? In that scenario, would the city or the operating entity be governed by the existing union contracts negotiated between OSF and its production crews?

The possibilities presented by a multi-disciplinary performing arts campus could provide diverse, year-round opportunities for tourists to visit Ashland, but the complications are considerable.

Will OSF’s board and leadership facilitate or obstruct a major transition to a new paradigm?

We often hear about OSF’s undeniable financial impact on Ashland, but that street runs two ways. What is OSF’s obligation to the city of Ashland?

The festival was founded on a $400 grant the city made to Angus Bowmer in 1935. The city makes an annual major grant to OSF funded by the hotel and motel tax. Over the decades, these contributions total well into the seven figures.

Tourists are drawn here not just by OSF but by local, tax-paying businesses and the tax-supported amenities Ashland offers, such as Lithia Park.

If OSF folds, any transition to a new operation will have to be approved (or opposed) by OSF board members, most of whom do not live full-time in Ashland. Their loyalties lie with the organization, not the town. What will their priorities be?

I moved to Ashland in 1984 and worked at the Festival for more than 20 years. I am deeply invested in the success of both OSF and Ashland. I want both to thrive, but I am a realist.

The world has changed. Can OSF and Ashland change with it? If not, what happens to those left behind?