Not eleven words into your piece on the news rack ordinance, and you made a terrible error. The city has yet to “pass” its ordinance; the ordinance only had a first reading. On March 18, upon second reading, council will likely vote as they had on March 4, then the ordinance will be said to have “passed.”
I only make this point because we, the publishers, are still making efforts to affect that, and by misleading your readers you’ve inhibited our ability to do so.
Also, I find it disappointing that you never once mention that council selected the city ordinance over Option 2, an ordinance offered by the publishers that gives greater consideration for all parties involved. The real story is that a unanimous group of fierce competitors – including your paper – came together to offer a solution that prevents government from regulating the First Amendment, meddling in the newspaper industry and causing injury to local businesses. That space was reserved for a list of public safety clauses that exist on the books now, as well as in both the publishers’ and the proposed city ordinances.
And to clarify, placement of the condominiums may or may not be “determined by city employees with help from local publishers.” As it stands, that is the sole task of the city manager and the publishers have not been asked to contribute to the process.
Finally, in the interest of disclosure, I wonder why you didn’t also find it important to mention that the Collegian was part of the publishers’ process. I appreciate you covering this important, local issue.
Associate Publisher, Rocky Mountain Chronicle