hoodedswan comment-62703 2012-01-24T20:19:42Z 2012-01-24T20:19:42Z 1) The possibility of "abuse & escalation of fees" depends on the terms of the agreement. The abilities of City negotiators is separate from the length of the agreement. 2) The price of parking is an issue for people who have season tickets & buy lower price tickets. 3) This is the 1 key issue, poorly stated. Although Sacto has a large population, there are no companies that benefit from national media exposure headquartered here. That's a permanent issue for charities & the arts as well as pro sports. 4) This is a just a restatement of #3. 6) Sacto is #26 in population nationally & the capitol of the biggest state & it's smart to aspire to emulate small towns? Really? 7) It's questionable, at least, to attack sports commentators when it's typical for broadcast pros to move in search of better positions. SR515: The GB Packers are unique for a big 3 sports franchise. All the others are owned by the very rich & they want to keep it that way. The bottom line is Sacto is a major market without a major company HQ in a state where financing ordinary government operations is a major challenge. Financing an NBA building, or anything else big, without federal subsidy will require both creativity & risk. That's not an endorsement of the parking proposal, it's our circumstances. hoodedswan 2012-01-24T20:19:42Z P W comment-62694 2012-01-24T19:10:51Z 2012-01-24T19:10:51Z Would YOU invest in something that would require the use of automobiles for the next 50-years? I wouldn't. Cars, and the associated parking issues that we are familiar with now will both be radically changed in the next 20-30 years. Imagine if the same sort of deal had been made at the turn of the last century regarding horses and livery stables. Ha! Mass transportation will likely evolve in urban areas - including Sacramento - where driving into downtown will be unecessary. And if you do, "your" car will likely be owned by another entity, which, upon your disembarking, will take off on it's own to pick up it's next passenger...no parking necessary! P W 2012-01-24T19:10:51Z Rhys02 comment-62631 2012-01-24T01:26:48Z 2012-01-24T01:26:48Z Why doesn't the Sacramento Press follow journalistic standards and clearly identify editorials as such and stop the practice of presenting them as news articles. Regardless of the merit of any the the arguments... the writer clearly has an ax to grind...and that is what the editorial page and/or letters to the editor are for. Rhys02 2012-01-24T01:26:48Z sacresident515 comment-62629 2012-01-23T23:21:15Z 2012-01-23T23:21:15Z Ron, I am agreeance that the parking deal is a bad bad route to go. But I strongly disagree with how you have turned this into a discussion of why you feel there should not be an arena. If you have 10 reasons why the parking deal is bad for Sacramento, then argue that. You took that platform and stood on it to instead preach about your own biases against having a new sports entertainment complex. I was disappointed at how misleading your article title was, and that you failed to mention some of the important points that would have focused in fact on the parking deal without bringing into question whether or not the new arena should be built. Do not use the parking deal as a facade for your tirade agains the Kings, NBA, ESPN Sports, National Media, and overall "City living" and urban growth. You really should have titled your artcile "10 Ways I want to see Sacramento instead become about as desirable as living in Fresno, CA or Stockton, CA or Modesto, CA" (Nothing against those cities, just saying that the reason Sacramento real estate is still more valuable than these cities even in this economic climate is because of things like having the Kings, and other larger market businesses.) sacresident515 2012-01-23T23:21:15Z sacresident515 comment-62628 2012-01-23T23:10:44Z 2012-01-23T23:10:44Z Having lived in rurual northern California for 5 years (Redding, the "metropolis" of this area) I am so glad you mentioned this because that is exactly what came to mind when this writer described what they wanted Sacramento to become instead, it literally made me think "this guy sounds like he wants to live in a place like Redding and have the Redding Convention Center be put in to Downtown Sacramento." I love Redding, but that is not what Sacramento is. While I do love the community and small-town values you often see here in Sac, I do not think we should be scaling back to small town rural entertainment otherwise we will in turn have a small town rural economy much like Redding's that was one of the worst hit places for foreclosures and unemployment. Look at places like Green Bay, their small market big heart values have led them to have a powerhouse NFL franchise that IS paid for with capitalism yet shared amonst the community members who chose to invest in their franchise. We have that community momentum and interest here, let's utilize that rather than taking from taxpayers and citizens across the board with deals like this parking situation. sacresident515 2012-01-23T23:10:44Z Rhonda Erwin comment-62625 2012-01-23T22:35:05Z 2012-01-23T22:35:05Z Maybe that's why the Maloofs went to the city and not the bank- the city is in deficit and the people are desperate for jobs, bigger entertainment center and will look at the Arena making them money. But the bank, not desperate or in deficit, is going to want to know what happened to the money / profits from the current facility and ask why can't your profits pay for it? If I need a loan I'm not going to a broke friend who doesn't have it (in deficit) asking them to beg, steal and borrow (raise parking fees….) I'm going to the bank. I don’t claim to be knowledgeable on this subject and perhaps this subject requires more thought than good ol fashion common sense. It just seems if the only way to pay for this arena is through a city in deficit then perhaps those willing and have the money to share in the cost won’t finance it because they don't want to lose money and have more business sense than the city of Sacramento. Rhonda Erwin 2012-01-23T22:35:05Z joell83 comment-62624 2012-01-23T22:29:16Z 2012-01-23T22:29:16Z High schol football? Is this a joke? joell83 2012-01-23T22:29:16Z Rhonda Erwin comment-62623 2012-01-23T22:12:21Z 2012-01-23T22:12:21Z I certainly see you point. In fact I agree. Heck, too often officials are looking at money and their visions are distracted -they don't see the forest through the trees. I know it sounds silly and many may not agree but heck sometimes to make money you can't be looking at the money. I bet every billionaire started out with a passion, a vision to create, develop, something special, unique, invent something that we hadn’t discovered…and the money followed because their was a need. But we have an arena, we're not looking at funding an arena because we don't have one, we're looking at money. Seems if a new Arena was an answer to our financial woes the arena we currently have would have done much better financially to pay for it. It just seems if we've outgrown our current arena then why don’t we have the money to pay for a bigger and better one?? I'm not in business but it seems if I started out with one restaurant ---and I had to lay off many employees like Arco arena--I wouldn't take a loan to buy a bigger and nicer restaurant. If my restaurant was successful I wouldn’t need a loan, I’d take my profits and then buy a bigger and nicer restaurant and make more money. But, my bet is our officials will look at money and not good ol fashion common sense. Rhonda Erwin 2012-01-23T22:12:21Z MyQuest comment-62621 2012-01-23T20:13:21Z 2012-01-23T20:13:21Z Does anyone here believe this City Council won't approve a deal that will give them access to $200 million? Of course they'll cut that deal whether its used for an arena or more homeless shelters or drinbbled away to shore up City finances. You can see the drool dropping now. MyQuest 2012-01-23T20:13:21Z daddyo comment-62619 2012-01-23T19:05:51Z 2012-01-23T19:05:51Z Ron, Good article. First and foremost I seriously doubt that most of the "supporters" are even aware that the City Council is considering approving an entertainment facility WITHOUT PARKING! That seems absurd! They want you to park in the city lot at 10th and K and "stroll" with your family or small children, at night, through the lovely, enchanting, homeless laden downtown streets to go to Snoopy On Ice. Right.... Secondly, Chicago tried the parking sell-off game- for a 75 year contract. They spent 85% of their money to pay of pension and other debt- in three years. Now they have 15% of the money left to support the city for the next 72 years. Sacto leadership is heading down the same road. Bankrupting the City to again try and fulfill some "world class city fantasy" is another bad idea. daddyo 2012-01-23T19:05:51Z PocketGOPer comment-62613 2012-01-23T17:12:24Z 2012-01-23T17:12:24Z I have been fortunate to have had the opportunity to travel to a few cities (smaller media markets than Sacramento) and I am VERY impressed with what new Entertainment and Sports Complexes do for the downtown cores of those towns. Let's build and it and our city will thrive! If you don't like city living, move to rural northern California. PocketGOPer 2012-01-23T17:12:24Z SouthSac1 comment-62607 2012-01-22T23:25:41Z 2012-01-22T23:25:41Z When it comes right down to it Ron, perhaps you're more on the mark but for completely different reasons. Despite the financial woes of the Kings, it may be the financial woes of the citizens that really matter. What with the governor's tax package, will the majority of voters decide to bail out the state AND bail out the Kings? With so little good news on the economy, Sacramento voters may lose the Kings in order to simplify their lives. It's tough to worry about the Maloof's and their million-dollar athletes, when many continue to lose their homes, default on their bills, and go under from the lack of any improved spending power. It would be a loss... but the financial strain of winning the battle to keep the Kings may not be worth the additional time, energy or cost. SouthSac1 2012-01-22T23:25:41Z Tony Sheppard comment-62605 2012-01-22T21:51:33Z 2012-01-22T21:51:33Z Agreed - I think there's a good chance that ten years from now we could have a nice, shiny, empty arena and a parking contractor who's posting record profits from the highest parking rates Sacramento has ever seen. We're not going to get an arena that's at the top of the list of desirable venues for 50 years and we're not going to get a 50 contract from a sports team/league, so why would we give up something known for 50 years to get an unknown in return? Tony Sheppard 2012-01-22T21:51:33Z TheVoiceofReason comment-62603 2012-01-22T20:21:29Z 2012-01-22T20:21:29Z Unfortunately, the powers that be, have put the city in the position of shouldering the financial burden of this "reach for the stars" arena build. The financials and finals cost are as yet to discovered while the lease/sale of the city's parking asset will become a fixed value. According to John Dangberg, the city rec'd over 25 responses to the RFQ. How does that compare to the amount of response the private sector has shown with regards to contributing to the arena? Looks like our parking asset is highly desirable to the private sector, guaranteed return on investment. In contrast, the arena, Not So Much, if any. TheVoiceofReason 2012-01-22T20:21:29Z YouWantWhat comment-62601 2012-01-22T18:48:41Z 2012-01-22T18:48:41Z There's also a catch-22 in the RFP process. When you read the council staff report, you find that the RFP process has no funding source. So once the RFQ's are evaluated and the list of qualified bidders is created, the staff needs to ask council for authorization to proceed with the expensive RFP process. Looking at the list of requirements of staff time, consultants both legal and financial...the city's due diligence will be well in excess of a million dollars...and where does the report suggest that comes from? "It is anticipated that final bidders may each spend up to one or two million dollars performing their due diligence and preparing their responses to a RFP. For this reason, "it will be necessary to provide assurances of Council’s commitment, subject to CEQA review, to monetize if bid amounts and concession agreement terms are acceptable." Otherwise, potential bidders may avoid consideration of an RFP without such a commitment." So, what staff and/or the WALKER consultatnts are saying...Don't commit to the RFP process, unless the city is actually going to lease off the parking operation....and that's how they will pay for the city's cost of the RFP "there will be additional consultant costs to complete the monetization term sheet, concession agreement and RFP process. Staff will identify those costs and sources of funding in advance of Council action. Those costs are reimbursable from the proceeds of monetization. Here's the Report: Do both Control-F search with RFQ as the operative term and one with RFP http://www.cityofsacramento.org/arena/pdfs/ESC_Update_Parking_Monetization.pdf We already have spent over a half million on this...first rule of holes..."When your in one, stop digging".....however some would have us dig faster! YouWantWhat 2012-01-22T18:48:41Z William Burg comment-62599 2012-01-22T08:51:04Z 2012-01-22T08:51:04Z There are other factors at work here--can the Maloofs afford to sacrifice ARCO Arena and a share of their team? They pretty much have to, as they don't have the $70 million to buy their way out of town. Can AEG afford to let the Kings move to Anaheim, which would cost them around $500 million in media rights? And how does ARCO become valuable property as long as the North Natomas building moratorium is still in effect? I'm not entirely convinced about the need for a slightly bigger concert hall downtown, or that it would be so inexpensive. I suppose a smaller facility could be put in a smaller space--like the 300 block of Capitol, or in the "Docks" area along the Sacramento River, instead of on top of the Amtrak parking lot like the current arena proposal. But even at a lower cost--who pays for it? And could we get by with Arco, Memorial Auditorium and public events at the Rivercats ballpark across the river, while reinvesting in our own transportation network, local businesses, infill, and, based on response #9, more hustle and bustle on the streets from small/medium sized local music clubs, generating foot traffic and urban interest. That sort of thing can be parlayed into far more private investment in the urban core--ideally, at least doubling the population of the central city. And that kind of vitality CAN draw interest from corporate headquarters and major commerce (or become the incubator for locally-grown business reaching that size) and thus provide both the tax base and the private financing for a strongly-positioned, financially feasible arena proposal. William Burg 2012-01-22T08:51:04Z ron cooper comment-62598 2012-01-22T08:05:20Z 2012-01-22T08:05:20Z All good questions - all requiring much research and negotiation. My principle point is that the desperation to make a deal with the Kings using 50-years of parking fees is a faulty premise and, apparently, the only serious option the City has to offer. We are talking about a facility costing (conservatively) in excess at $400+ million. The Maloofs, I believe, will go where they can hold onto some semblance of their former business interests but really have very little to offer financially. The Anaheim deal revealed how weakened they have become. So even with $200 million from parking, AEG and the NBA would be expected to come up with the rest. They smell an opportunity to dictate terms unfavorable to taxpayers. So after all the work and sincere efforts from our Mayor, Kings fans, and local businesses, the story will continue to be the City negotiating from a position of weakness and being sniped at by folks here in Sac Press. Just like buying a car, we need to walk away to get a reasonable deal on the table - or not - the Kings may simply be "too expensive" to keep. The City is doing all the work in a public way and at a distinct disadvantage. We need to consider the reality that we cannot handle the debt load that AEG and the NBA and the Maloofs will require. Without the silliness of 50-year parking fees, we are already there but no one seems ready to admit it - we still want to believe in "miracles". But in this economy with a deadline only weeks away, we need to begin the process of moving on. The miracle has already happened when Luckenbill stole the Kings from Kansas City back in the 80's. It has been a good run but the price is too high. Small Arena Approach - What might "moving on" look like? The Maloofs and/or the NBA will pay off the $70 million debt before the courts will permit them to leave. Once paid off, ARCO/PBP becomes valuable property once again. Maybe that's all we need for future entertainment but I agree with those who argue for a "centerpiece entertainment arena" in the downtown rail yards. Our economy cannot handle $400 million but closer to $100 million might be realistic. The Stockton Arena seats 10,000 and cost $63 million in 2005 Let's relieve the pressure to do a bad deal immediately by negotiating the deal "off the clock" and without the insane luxury requirements of the NBA. We can put our energy into researching other sports and entertainment options using a smaller seating plan of 12-14,000. This could include arena football, minor league hockey, and designed to provide a more acoustic setting for most arena musical performances. Perhaps AEG or other entertainment corporations could be enticed to participate. Where Might the Funding Come From? - ARCO/PBP might be an interesting property for private investment or further consolidation of State Agencies into one large facility. The economy needs to continue to improve but without impossible deadlines and a more modest design, options open up. The tough requirement is letting go of the Kings. If the parking deal is the best chance we have, we need to pass. That's why a substitute plan is so important. We can have the entertainment arena in the downtown but on our terms not the Maloofs and not the NBA. Growth is good but only in a fiscally responsible way. This is one idea... there are others... let's move on. ron cooper 2012-01-22T08:05:20Z William Burg comment-62596 2012-01-22T03:30:41Z 2012-01-22T03:30:41Z You had me until you started talking about a slightly smaller arena. How exactly does that work, and how do you propose paying for it--and which of these events are we not currently hosting at Rubberband Pavilion or the Convention Center already? William Burg 2012-01-22T03:30:41Z SouthSac1 comment-62595 2012-01-22T03:03:31Z 2012-01-22T03:03:31Z While I certainly agree the parking 'deal' is no deal, I don't agree we should forfeit the effort to keep the Kings, and appropriately pay for the aspirations of being an ESPN town. Unless we see a grander future for our great grandkids, we aspire to status quo and that's a dangerous approach. It's cliché I know, but when you reach for the stars, you do land somewhere high. Financing the reach for the stars with income from parking meters just doesn't quite seem visionary. SouthSac1 2012-01-22T03:03:31Z LisaB23 comment-62594 2012-01-22T01:05:50Z 2012-01-22T01:05:50Z Well said. As a central city resident I'm also concerned about taking away the residential permit parking areas and not allowing residents to park on the street at meters as they can today in their permit areas. This is essential to protect residents as parking gets more and more scarce. And I'm totally worried about uncontrolled meter and ticket prices chasing people away from downtown and midtown businesses - the lifeblood of our diverse mixed use areas. I'm also concerned about downtown businesses still being able to do 3-4 hour validations at downtown garages. Assistant City Manager John Dangberg was quoted in the Bee saying something to the effect that it's too soon to be asking these questions. Uhm...OK thanks for telling us that we have no business asking valid questions. Please everyone keep asking and keep demanding answers. I don't oppose the Kings or a downtown arena, in fact a downtown entertainment complex is a great idea but leveraging our parking revenue for 50 years is absurd. And..does anyone understand the concept of net present value? We're giving up billions in revenue over 50 years for a few million dollars today. Talk about leveraging our future. Not OK. LisaB23 2012-01-22T01:05:50Z ron cooper comment-61498 2011-12-20T17:24:36Z 2011-12-20T17:24:36Z Check out www.AccessSacramento.org for New Year's special programming times including a marathon of "Democracy Now with Amy Goodman" highlighted programs from throughout 2011. ron cooper 2011-12-20T17:24:36Z ron cooper comment-61436 2011-12-17T07:22:41Z 2011-12-17T07:22:41Z Watch local holiday programming all Christmas and New Year's weekend on Access Sacramento channel 17. From our family to yours, enjoy the Holidays! Access Sacramento Board, volunteers and staff. ron cooper 2011-12-17T07:22:41Z Daxfem comment-57977 2011-09-28T15:43:20Z 2011-09-28T15:43:20Z I'm curious to know why everyone keeps saying Claire Elizabeth is the youngest film maker. Back in 2009 wasn't there a film called "Midnight Snack" that was done by an 8 year old? Claire's film even has a similar premiss as Midnight Snack, doesn't it? Daxfem 2011-09-28T15:43:20Z Tony Sheppard comment-57906 2011-09-27T09:26:45Z 2011-09-27T09:26:45Z This has been a mainstay of the film arts community in Sacramento for 12 years and where a lot of local filmmakers got their start. If you've ever wondered if you could make a film, come and check this out - because most of these filmmakers were in that same place, wondering the same thing, a year or three ago. Two years ago, in our respective tenth seasons, we were proud to give Ron Cooper our Film Arts Service Award and the rest of Sacramento should celebrate Ron and "A Place Called Sacramento" also! Tony Sheppard, Co-Director, Sacramento Film & Music Festival :) Tony Sheppard 2011-09-27T09:26:45Z ron cooper comment-57904 2011-09-27T08:55:25Z 2011-09-27T08:55:25Z See you Sunday - get there early to get a great seat. Stay after for "Sister Swing" and the party. ron cooper 2011-09-27T08:55:25Z William Burg comment-32120 2010-07-03T19:18:03Z 2010-07-03T19:18:03Z We're all leaders. William Burg 2010-07-03T19:18:03Z Sherrie Tyler comment-32112 2010-07-03T18:28:13Z 2010-07-03T18:28:13Z Excellent article!! I loved it! Sherrie Tyler 2010-07-03T18:28:13Z Craig Powell comment-32102 2010-07-03T15:12:01Z 2010-07-03T15:12:01Z Pretty insightful thoughts, Ron. Well done. Craig Powell 2010-07-03T15:12:01Z ron cooper comment-21898 2010-02-09T02:18:43Z 2010-02-09T02:18:43Z Come to the music party at Beatnik Studios 2421 17th Street 6:30-10:30 PM this Saturday night and see yourself on Access Sacramento channel 17 later in the month. Donations accepted at the door. Check out the web site at www.playwidease.com ron cooper 2010-02-09T02:18:43Z Bacon comment-13992 2009-09-18T20:58:53Z 2009-09-18T20:58:53Z What a concept. I like the peacemeal approach. Kudos Ron Cooper. My good friend Monica Stark told me about what your doing. I want to get in on this thing. Got your number, Tony Bacon documentarian/videographer Bacon 2009-09-18T20:58:53Z Henry Stroud comment-11633 2009-08-06T21:06:53Z 2009-08-06T21:06:53Z This is an interesting issue, one that many people seem to overlook. What sort of history does Sacramento have with movies? Henry Stroud 2009-08-06T21:06:53Z Tony Sheppard comment-11419 2009-08-01T10:59:50Z 2009-08-01T10:59:50Z Agreed. Sacramento gains when production and payroll expenses are spent locally and that can be done by both outside or local production companies and hotel rooms are only one part of the expenditure model for the outside companies. And consistent smaller-scale productions of film, tv, commercials, etc. can be just as valuable to the economy as occasional large-scale productions - indeed, a consistently-employed local workforce without incentive to leave the area is far more likely to invest in the community, buy real estate, and generally spend money than crew who are tossed an occasional well-paid job who are then inclined to horde their income in fear of future dry spells. Incentives should be cumulative on a production company or facility, not with a threshold per project. Tony Sheppard 2009-08-01T10:59:50Z William Burg comment-11414 2009-08-01T02:45:15Z 2009-08-01T02:45:15Z Well-stated and well-argued; hopefully it is read by people who can do something about it! William Burg 2009-08-01T02:45:15Z rustymodem comment-9700 2009-06-20T17:32:36Z 2009-06-20T17:32:36Z http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Telecomm/PEG.aspx Public, Educational and Government rustymodem 2009-06-20T17:32:36Z Colleen Belcher comment-9151 2009-06-09T07:10:00Z 2009-06-09T07:10:00Z Can you explain what a PEG platform is? Do many people have access to U-Verse? Is it marketed as a cheaper version of cable? I'm not familiar with the PEG cable channels. Colleen Belcher 2009-06-09T07:10:00Z Geoff Samek comment-8110 2009-05-22T14:00:10Z 2009-05-22T14:00:10Z The change has been made to the above article. Geoff Samek 2009-05-22T14:00:10Z ron cooper comment-8046 2009-05-22T01:10:48Z 2009-05-22T01:10:48Z Kati Garner Photographer PO Box 19764 Sacramento, CA 95819 916-508-4471 www.photoshop.com/user/katigarner ron cooper 2009-05-22T01:10:48Z ron cooper comment-8011 2009-05-21T19:41:56Z 2009-05-21T19:41:56Z My apologies for an error in the photo credit.... Photos by Kati Garner - thanks Kati ron cooper 2009-05-21T19:41:56Z Brian Moffitt comment-5277 2009-03-30T22:25:15Z 2009-03-30T22:25:15Z Hi Colleen I am the producer/host of the show .... it just started a few weeks ago. It features weekly discussions with experts on how to find a job, develop your career or business, or improve morale and productivity. I also post segments on You Tube (search "good work now") and on my face book page. I hope you can tune in! Brian Moffitt, Ed.D. Brian Moffitt 2009-03-30T22:25:15Z thesacramentofly comment-5119 2009-03-27T07:10:15Z 2009-03-27T07:10:15Z WHY GO TO MEDIA MEETING ABOUT OUR COUNTRYS CORRUPT PROPAGANDA MACHINE THAT OUR FORMER DICTATOR ACTED AS THE TOOL TO TO OBTAIM CONTROL OVER WHAT YOU THINK IS THE TRUTH THAT THE VIACOMIES,SMEAR CHANNELS HAS PLANTED IN THE TINY MINDS OF A MAJORITY OF CITIZENS . then AFTER YOU FI ND OUT YOU HAVE BEEN HAD ,YOU LET YOUR TROOPS AND INICENT CITIZENS OF A SOVEIRERN COUNTY KILL EACH OTHER AND OF COURSE WE ARE BETTER OFF FOR IT ITS SAD!!!!!!!!! THE SACRAMENTO FLY thesacramentofly 2009-03-27T07:10:15Z The Parrhesiac comment-5117 2009-03-27T06:09:00Z 2009-03-27T06:09:00Z You believe that there should be "community advisory boards" for the media? Nice going Pol Pot! The Parrhesiac 2009-03-27T06:09:00Z Geoff Samek comment-5099 2009-03-26T06:39:16Z 2009-03-26T06:39:16Z Of more concern to me then Cable Access taking over the world are some recent quotes by our new Attorney General Eric Holder. SeattlePi.com and AP is reporting, "Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday he is open to re-examining government antitrust policies that limit mergers in the struggling newspaper industry." SeattlePi.com and AP also quotes Holder saying, "I'd like to think that 20, 30, 40 years from now people will still be reading newspapers." Government intervention to remove anti-trust rules so that we can get physical paper on our doorstep 40 years from now is a troubling sentiment. Source: http://www.seattlepi.com/national/1152ap_newspapers_antitrust.html Geoff Samek 2009-03-26T06:39:16Z Geoff Samek comment-5098 2009-03-26T06:30:40Z 2009-03-26T06:30:40Z On a separate, less administrative note, your event sounds fantastic and if my schedule is free I plan on attending. It's this kind of discussion that is crucial in our changing media landscape. Geoff Samek 2009-03-26T06:30:40Z Geoff Samek comment-5097 2009-03-26T06:28:51Z 2009-03-26T06:28:51Z Ron, I noticed that they style of your article was really a little crazy, and the formatting was completely off. I went ahead and cleaned up the HTML. Let me know if anything I have changed has misrepresented your content. We do not allow HTML in our posts, but sometimes it can slip through, as it did in your article. Feel free to contact me personally if you have any questions at geoff@sacramentopress.com Geoff Samek 2009-03-26T06:28:51Z The Parrhesiac comment-5093 2009-03-26T05:05:13Z 2009-03-26T05:05:13Z This sounds like a smoke screen and the beginnings of a back door attempt at the "Fairness Doctrine" otherwise known as censorship of the media by liberals who don't like the fact that MOST people prefer more conservative radio. This is apparently being held by Common Cause. It is being billed as a "Community Discussion about Local media" but buried in the memo is: "The Federal Communications Commission has proposed the establishment of community advisory boards to local advise local broadcasters." The Parrhesiac 2009-03-26T05:05:13Z Colleen Belcher comment-5053 2009-03-25T00:58:49Z 2009-03-25T00:58:49Z How long has this show been aired for? Thanks for sharing this tidbit. Any success stories from people who have watched the show and put the tips into action and found a job? Colleen Belcher 2009-03-25T00:58:49Z