HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - May 4, 1983 (37)RES. Np. 83-33 Following introci��ction of the matter by City imager Glaves,
Council, on motion of Mayor Pro Tempore Snider, Pinkerton
second, adopted Resolution No. 83-33 opposing S.66 �.
r (Goldwater) which bill seeks to usurp local authority over ,
' cable television.
CITY COUNCIL
EVELYN M. OLSON. Mayor
JOHN R (Randy) SNIDER
Mayor Pro Tempore
ROBERT G MURPHY
JAMES W. PINKERTON. Jr.
FRED m REID
Cl
0
CITY OF LODI
CITY HALL. 221 NEST PINE STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 320
LODI. CALIFORNIA 95241
(209)334-5634
May 9, 1983
League of California Cities
1400 ":C" Street
Sacramento,. CA 95814
Gentlemen:
Fxtclosed herewith please find a Certified copy of Resolution No.
83-33 of the City Council of the City Of Lodi opposing S.66
(Goldwater), which bill seeks to usurp local authority over Cable
Television which was adopted by the Lodi City Council at its
regular mENe-ting of Mary 4, 1983.
Very truly yours,
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
AMR-. j j
I- !_- rI'l
HENRY A. CLAVES. It
City Manalter
ALICE M REIMCHE
City Clerk
RONALD tit STEIN
City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 83-33
RESOLUTION OPPOSING S.66 (GOLMnkTER) ,
WHICH BILL SEEKS TO USURP LOCAL AUTHORITY
OVER CABLE TELEVISION
WHEREAS, the National League of Cities (NLC) and the National Cable
Television Association (NCTA) has negotiated a coxTpronise on S.66
(Goldwater).
WHEREAS, the ccnpronise is inconsistent with California Policy in
the following areas:
(a) The buyout provisions conflict with our position
that these are properly the subject of franchise
negotiations;
(b) The non -grandfathering will invalidate exist ina
contracts freely negotiated;
(c) The renewal standards virtually guarantee renewal
of any franchise;
(d) The rate deregulation prow j.sions contain noconsumer
protection provisions; and
(e) The preclusion of local regulation of service may be
so broad as to preclude regulation of even access to
adult programming.
NOW, TFER MIE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Lodi does hereby oppose S.66 (Goldwater) and the oompromise as
approved by the Board of the National League of Cities.
NOW, 1TIEWOM, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Lodi does hereby urge the League of California Cities to work with
its member cities to develop specific legislative provisions to
protect the ability of local jurisdictions to negotiate and enforce
local cable franchises.
Dated: May 4, 1983
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 83-33 was
passed and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Lodi in a regular meeting held May 4, 1983
by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members - Snider, Murphy, Pinkerton,
and Olson (Mayor)
Noes: Council Members - None
Absent: Council Marbers - Rei .
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
83-33
CONCERNS re S.66
Renewal
C
- protect ability to get up-to-date or "state -of -the art"
systems
- protect indirect avoidance of the grandfather clause
(which becomes non -effective when franchise is renewed)
provided that operator may apply for renewal no sooner
than 36 months before expiration
- protect cities from antitrust suits if they go through
the renewal procedure
- clarify standard of court's review of nonrenewal
Grandfather Clause
make sure the "significant change of circumstances"
escape clause is not a loophole a loop may be driven
through
clarify whether b/or how the bill applies to 2 -way service
Rate Deregulation
- protect California's law, or, as a fallback, get consumer
protection authority in federal law
Preemption
- clarify the non -preemption clause
- provide a non -preemption or gra-ndfather-clause for stricter
local standards on consumer privacy protection
Franchise Ferns
clarify that the definition does not preclude levying or
collection of utility user taxes, or possessor}/interest
taxes
Purchases
- make sure the "fair market value" does not give the operator
a premium for holding a franchise.
LAW OFFICES OF
BRENTON A. BLEIER
,' , !J c' 1';/ELI
1001 O STREET. SUITE 101 t
SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 9561 4 1,33 MAY -4AM,AM,{�
(J
(916) 444.3994
May 3, 1983
"Ya,
Mrs. Alice Reimche
City Clerk, City of Lodi.
221 West Pine
Lodi, California 95240
Dear Alice:
I have received word that the National
League of Cities'
board unanimously endorsed a resolution
opposing the
National League of Cities' compromise
on the Goldwater
Bill.
I believe this action by the League's
board is in the
best interests of the California cities
and. in the best
traditions of League representation of
those cities.
I particularly want to thank you for
our support in this
critical area. I am sure that your s
pport will have a
dramatic effect upon the California
ngressional delegation
at a minimum and more probably the H use
of Representatives
at large.
Thanks again for your support.
V trul
yours,
RENTON A.
BLEIER
t to rney at
Law
BAB/sk
cc: Robert E. Smith,
Executive Director
Sacramento Metr000litan
Cable Television Commission
CITY COUNCIL
EVEIYN M. OLSON, Mayor CITY OF L 4 D I
IOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER
` Mayor Pro Tempore CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET
ROBERT C. MURPHY POST OFFICE BOX 320
JAMES W PINKERTON, Jr. LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241
f 'r'
FRED M REIp(2091 334-5634
May 9, 1983
Honorable Senator
Alan Cranston
229 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Cranston:
Enclosed herewith please find a Certified copy of Resolution No.
83-33 of the City Council of the City of Lodi opposing S,66
(Goldwater), which bill seeks to usurp local authority aver Cable
Television which was adopted by the Lodi City Council at its
regular meeting of May 4, 19.3
Very truly yours,
&u
Alice M. Re
City Clerk
: i J
HENRY A CLAVES, Jr
City Manager
ALICE M RE IMCHE
City Clerk
RONALD M STEIN
City Attorney
CITY COUNCIL
IV[ LYN M. yMayor
CITY O F L O D I
IOHN R (Rannddy}) SNIDER
Mayor Pro Tempore
CITY HALL. 221 WEST Pt\E STREET
ROBERT C MURPHY
POST OFFICE BOX 320
IAMES W PINKERTON. Ir.
LODI. CALIFORNIA 952.31
FRED M REID
(209) 334-5634
May 9, 1983
Honorable Congressman
Nor. -an ShtrTway
1150 West Robinhood, Dr., Suite 1-A
Stockton, CA 95207
Dear Congressman Shumway:
Enclosed herewith please find a Certified copy of Resolution No.
83-33 of the City Council of the City of Lodi opposing S.66
(Goldwater), which bili seeks to usarp local authority over Cable
Television which was adopted by the Lodi City Council at its
regular meeting of May 4, 1983.
Very truly yours,
Aw A
Alice M. Reiftiche
City Clerk
AMR:
F sILq
HENRY A. CLAVES. Ir
City Manager
ALICE M REIMCHE
City Clerk
RONALD M STEIN
City Attorney
SAC R^ ENTO M ETR O F- LITAN
ble
elevision r
mmigsR 11GO
n�
SUITE 2500. 700'H' ST.. SACK t� EASP 14 (916) 440-6661
April 7, 1983
Dear Cable Television Officer:
ROBERT E. SMITH
[%[CUTIV[ D.N(CTCR IT
Pending federal legislation may threaten to erode the ability of your City Council to
negotiate and enforce cable television franchises. The Board of Directors of the
Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Television Commission has authorized its staff to ac—
tively work with other cities to defeat S.66, the Coldwater Bill, which seeks to usurp
local authority over cable television.
The Board of the National League of Cities recently approved compromise language for
S.66. Many cities feel as we do, that this compromise is not in the best interest of
cable subscribers. Member cities of the NLC were not consulted prior to the approval
of this compromise.
In a hastily called meeting in Washington D.C., over 25 citi.es met to discuss the NLC i
compromise. A second meeting of cities is scheduled for April 20th In Washington D.C.
It is critical that cities join together in tpposltion to the NLC compromise. If,
after conducting your own analysis, you wish to express your opposition, the following
steps are recommended:
1) Adopt a Resolution similar to the attached sample opposing the NLC compromise
and articulating your specific concerns with S.66 and the compromise Language.
Send copies of this Resolution to the NLC, the League of California Cities,,
the Senate and House Communication Sub -Committees, and your congressionaldele-
gation. Please forward copies of your approved Resolutions to my office.
2) Attend a meeting in Los Angeles on April 22nd to discuss developments in Wash-
ington and further action California cities and the League of California Cities
could take. This meeting is being coordinated by Michael Stover, Assistant ;
C.Ity Manager for Lakewood, and will take place in the City of EI Segundo.
Directions are attachee
The Board of the League of California Cities is meeting on April 29th and will be dis-
cussing S.66 and the NLC compromise. it is important that the Board hear from member
cities regarding the potential impact of federal cable deregulation.
If you have any questions or need more information, please call me at (916) 440-6661
or Michael Stover at (213) 866-9771 ext. 214.
Sincerely,
SPERANZA AVRAM' able Coordinator
Sacramento Metropolitan Cable
Television Commission
SA:ab
Attachments
IL
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF
CF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIIA EXPRESSING OPPOSITION
TO LANGUAGE ENTITLED "COt1PROMISE BETWEEN NATIONAL
LEAGUE OF CITIES AND NATIONAL CABLE ,'ELEVISION
ASSOCIATION ON FEDERAL CABLE LEGISLATION".
WHEREAS, under the existing state law, the governing body of a
city, county, or city and county may grant a cable television franchise; and
WHEREAS, the City (or Count ' of has
issued (will issue) a franchise to a cable operator to provide cable services;
WHLREAS, on March 4, 1983, the National League of Cities and the
National Cable Television Association agreed to compromise la..guage regardiug
federal cabl- legislation whic}: siLbstantially impacts said franchise agree-
ment;
gree-
ment; and
WH! RLAS, the Board of the National League of Cities approved this
lar.,guage on March 6, 1983; and
WH REAS, the Beard of the Nationsl League of Cities did not con-
sult with member cities before approving said compromise isngusge; and
WHLREAS, specific provisions in said compromise language are in
direct conflict with local laws which have been enacted by the City of
(County of)
1) The definition of concurrent jurisdiction between local
franchising authorities and the federal government removes
the areas of access, service and facility requirements,
renewal or extension of franchises, among the other areas
from exclusive local jurisdiction.
2) Cable operator will no longer be contractually bound to
provide services originally offered.
3) Renewal tests as outlined are vague and will result in
essentially automatic renewal of franchise.
4) Requirement that all franchises be brought into compliance
within one year impairs contracts fairly and voluntarily
negotiated and is a usurpation of local government's rights,
and
5) (Specific 'areas of concern to your franchise agreement)
WHEREAS, the Board of the National League of Cities should have
consulted with its member cities prior to approving said compromise language.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of (County on
opposes the compromise language as approved by the
Board of the National League of Cities.
BE IT FURTHER RLSOLVED, that the City of (County of)
urge the Board of the League of California Cities to oppose the
compromise as approved b�.- the national League of Cities on March 6, 1983.
BE IT FURTHER F-MLVED, that the City of (County of)
forward it's specific concerns to the ALC, it's congressional delegation and
urge the League of California Cities to work with its member cities to develop
specific legislative provisions to protect the ability of local jurisdictions
to negotiate and enforce local cable franchises.
On a motion by , seconded by
the fo: .going Resolution was passed and adopted by
on this day of ,
1983, by the following vote, to wit:
1. Isterteseneo with txioting
Costrsetus1 U latioaa
Federal standards/tsclu-
sive ?"Oral Jurisdiction
a. Municipal Owaersbip/Renewal
4. Rate Repaottoa
COMPARISON OF KEY ELEIIIdfTB OF S. " AND SUNTiTM DILL
•
S. 66 Substitute Bill
Froachisas mast be brought into
compliance with hill Within !0
days.
exclusive federal jur4diction
over matters In Bill
City rquirad to pay fair market
valve for system based on on-
going business »tlue of *"tem;
city prohibited from denying re -
newel it franchisee satisfied
federally-impomed atandardo.
City may regulate rates for basic
service (defined as broadcoat
signals) and for public, govera-
mont, and access channels; TCC
may remove rate regulatory author -
try if there are reasonably avail-
able alternatives to basic sar-
vice.
Franchises must be brought into eom-
pliaace with hill within l year. (17, -
corporates compromise)
tsclusive federal jurisdiction over
matters in hill; local authorities
have jurisdiction over matters strictly
of local concern and within the police
power. (incorporated compromise in part)
At aspiration of term, city rewired to
pay fair market value for "atm. to be
determined by arbitration. Upon ter-
mination for material breach, court re-
view tecdmation do novo and dater -
mines purchase price to be paid by city.
City prohibited from denying rewawel it
fraachisse satisfied federally-impneed
standards; denial of removal subject to
court review. (incorporates compromise)
For existing franchisee, city with 4
t.v. stations (at least 3 network affil -
Lot") prohibited tsar regulating basic
service rates after S years or after
half the rsmsisiag term of franchise.
If franchise awarded after effcctive
date of gill (6 mos. after assctuant),
city with 4 t.v. stations prohibited
from all rate regulation. Mhile rates
an regulated, operator my automMtl-
cally Increase rated Sx or the region -
&I CPI. (incorporates compromise)
uNAft
WOO
Cori Position
�/ The summary of the provisions of the Substitute bill is based on a Senate staff working draft that was released on Monday, March 21, 1113."
D
O • O r•� � M ! yy• Z.t O r � • • Y•� O •�v�
s y Y .YI is Y O •• .•i w A O r Q• i Y• Y O w
.aye • u M O .� • O /• Y~.■ • Y A 40
Of
M Y Y {�!� w• M y M• S yQ �r e M S i• y S_ of ^
.� s • M •A • .i �1 Y Y Y Y M a• Y "W o•to
oyN t i
s y � � s. w .t r � � � .y • ti � O ' i�. � > � .�i • w V
40 fid
40 Y C
Y 0 "' Y V v Y M • ap �1 Y .A Svt
t ` M �1 •_ .i Y
•. Y Y .f • pp Y w fY� Y Y "� •YY •
40 60
N .i6 Y I. Y V r I O �+ O Y II >� w•r a
1 b
N
•
3
.4 .4 •
Y M N � Y •
O� �� jYpY Y Y yY L M S
r M • e•p Y M Y w•i •
f. 4 •. . .•A O t.
a
Y
Y
rl
!w1
� V ,
tiT�4
C�
M
Y
a
D
O • O r•� � M ! yy• Z.t O r � • • Y•� O •�v�
s y Y .YI is Y O •• .•i w A O r Q• i Y• Y O w
.aye • u M O .� • O /• Y~.■ • Y A 40
Of
M Y Y {�!� w• M y M• S yQ �r e M S i• y S_ of ^
.� s • M •A • .i �1 Y Y Y Y M a• Y "W o•to
oyN t i
s y � � s. w .t r � � � .y • ti � O ' i�. � > � .�i • w V
40 fid
40 Y C
Y 0 "' Y V v Y M • ap �1 Y .A Svt
t ` M �1 •_ .i Y
•. Y Y .f • pp Y w fY� Y Y "� •YY •
40 60
N .i6 Y I. Y V r I O �+ O Y II >� w•r a
1 b
N
•
3
.4 .4 •
Y M N � Y •
O� �� jYpY Y Y yY L M S
r M • e•p Y M Y w•i •
f. 4 •. . .•A O t.
a
Y
Y
rl
!w1
� V ,
�~
e A
.. • 8 4a
4.0
Y I"w
r ►s• � b , . • 1. y O ad •` w
• •� j�o � Ype � v v � sO i
gs Vss�g��
r1 O O •�, Y a 4� i rl wA Yp Y L nQ
• .d.S • Y +!s Y w w w V M � �. O �.Y
C�Y.Y. M��y �0� Ow�Y.i3OYM•OM�Y�>� O
0 Y Y Y `. O Q- Y w O. e■ O. O Y .� t ..
06
•N Y L y ► Y V Y O .M S
�1••�. Z �5 � ..$o.w a.�i� a ..Y�1=�� CCjii
947• 4 r O v w� • i O p� Y Y • R Y f. .O•
V• y ff • •� .r • +� Y ft C O' O
V �� Y 1► Yy Me$��
3IL
41 i ai r i. _.+% 6Y�.Rit
•• C
Y w
v i
•. i e:
4 tt 1-� 11 0aR '
i;- xp_q > r� Q_p
V
`
ti
�..irlIVE)-
r�
t I
a• f x .:
4Lees JrrrSL.
O fr S m.0. • g $ ,, � ' i R z r IL • a
a'
Z 2
ki Ltd Z a
s
wit
i. t
a _� r _ $alit r 4111-
a Fri
all iL� � f �r 84 1 � . $ a, ��% �� it.. �•�'� t�' I � std' :�a.. l
u
LIA
' ,.__...,..,,..n,..N:<:,q.�.,w �rwez«.:n¢Azt�:senor+uca,sam<..s.^aa,�+�x*r,r.:-.vr.,.�?.:.:.�r.,.,.�•.�.� i. .. . .,y.....
FEDERAL CABT:E LEGISI.ATI')N:
T00 MUCH, TOO SOON
* Fin(' out what you can do to stop federal catle legislation whirh
threatens to take Awa` your al,ility to negotiate ani' enforce cable
franchises.
.loin with ot})er cities to make sure cede sui,scrihers are protected.
Mavors, Councilmem'aers, and Cahle office staff
4FEN: FF7D.AY, April 22, 1Q113 - 9:0'� am. to 11:00 pm,
� _ C: � e _ e
.4 T F. .. 3 � ..
'JFtF E, J(�SI.YN CENTER ��t n. 1. Segundo 3 hetdon
Y fi
From L.A. Airport go South or Sepel vela to Grand Avenue,
Fest (rig! -,t` on Srpnil A --nue to Sheldon
North (right! on Sheldon to JOSLYN CENTER - turn into
ark.
For rrore directions, call El. Segundo City hall:
213-322-4670
Far more infor-mt-nn con -tact: Michael Stover, City of Lakewood
213-966-Q771
CABLE MEETING RESERVATION FORM
Yes, I plan to attend t'r,.e Cable meeting.
No, I cannot attend, but please keep me informed.
Please mail reservation form to: Cable Meeting, City of Lakewood
5050 Clark Avenue
Lskewood, CA. 90712
Kj
March 31, 1983
—1
AITW'�� s
CITY OF SACRAMENTO
R. BURNETT MILLER
Mayor
City Hall. Room 205
Sacramento, California 95814
(916)449.5407
The Honorable Charles Royer
President, National League of Cities
600 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98704
Dear Mr. Royer:
After reviewing the NLC/NOTA compromise language regarding
proposed federal cable legislation approved on March 6th, I
was dismayed not only with the process utilized to reach
this compromise, but also its specific terms. As written,
this "compromise" could jeopardize the entire franchising
process undertaken by the City of Sacramento; yet, we had
no opportunity to express our views prior to its adoption.
For the past three years, and with more than 40 public hear-
ings, our City and the County of Sacramento has negotiated a
comprehensive franchise ordinance and agreement which seeks
to protect the public interest of cable subscribers. The
NLC compromise language, combined with the provisions of S.66,
threaten to remove our ability to enforce this locally nego-
tiated contract. Our specific concerns relate to the inability
to enforce offers of service over the cable system, as well as
the provision that "buy-out" must be at fair market value upon
termination of the franchise.
The NLC Board approved this compromise prior to soliciting
comments from member cities. I am particularly angry over
this disregard of the impact such a compromise could have on
our local operation.
Sacramento met with twenty-one other cities in Washington D. C.
on March 24th to express its concern over the compromise. I
would like to add our voice of protest and request that the
Board of the NLC take the following action:
1) Hold a special meeting for the purpose of reconsidering
and withdrawing its approval of the cable compromise.
narun ji, iyaj
Page 2
At that meeting, views and opinions from dissatisfied
cities should be heard and considered.
2) Solicit, through a special mailing, the responses of
member cities to the compromise proposal.
3) Actively seek time from all appropriate congressional
committees and sub -committees to allow for responses
from NLC member cities on federal cable legislation.
4) If, after evaluating the responses of members, it is
determined that there is a need for federal cable legis-
lation, the NLC should actively sponsor and support leg-
islation which protects the public interest, reflects
the member cities' rights, and ensures that the full
range of services will be made availahle to subscribers
on economically viable broadband telecommunications
systems.
I would like to hear your response to these requests by April
8th. Feel free to call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely.
BURNETT MILLER, Mayor
City of Sacramento
BM: ab
cc: NLC Board Members
Memters, Senate Communications Sub -Committee
Members, House Sub -Committee on Telecommunications
California Congressional Delegation
Concerned Cities
League of California Cities
National Association of Counties
U.S. Conference of Mayors
County Supervisors Association of California
Jacqueline Ftyner.mm
Vice Mayor
(..C. ( Dec) DeBaun
Council .ttember
April 15, 1983
Alice Reimche
City Clerk
City of Lodi
221 W. Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
Dear Ms. Reimche:
-� Larry Van Nostran
Council Member
U' Robert G. WaRne
0 K4
Paul r:. zeltner
Mayor
Re: S.66 - Cable Communications Legislation
The attached resolution was unanimously adopted on April 12,
1983 by the Lakewood City Council.
The City: Council urges immediate action by the League of
Cities to modify the S.66 "compromise" to protect freely
negotiated franchise commitments and to protect cable
subscribers.
Please indicate your response to our request.
Sincerely,
jyck0
4
Huntsinger
Clerk
Attachment
211/N66-97711-213/7-7.3-2964
RESOLUTION NO. 83-32
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LAKEWOOD EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO THE
COMPROMISE BETWEEN NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES
AND NATIONAL CABLE TELEVISION ASSOCIATION ON
FEDERAL CABLE LEGISLATION
WHEREAS, under the existing state law, the governing
body of a city may grant a cable television franchise; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lakewood has issued a franchise
to a cable operator to provide cable services; and
WHEREAS, on March 4, 1983, the National League of
Cities and the National Cable Television Association agreed to
compromise language regarding federal cable legislation which
substantially impacts said franchise agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Board of the National League of Cities
approved this language on March 6, 1983; and
WHEREAS, the Board of the National League of Cities
did not consul with member cities before approving said com-
promise language; and
WHEREAS, specific provisions in said compromise language
are in direct conflict with Lakewood cable Ordinances No. 81-18
and 82-13, including:
1. The definition of concurrent jurisdiction between
local franchising authorities and the federal
government removes the areas of access, service
and facility requirements, renewal or extension of
franchises, among the other areas from exclusive
local jurisdiction.
2. A cable operator may no longer be contractually
bound to provide services originally offered.
3. Renewal tests as outlined are vague and will result
in essentially automatic renewal of franchise.
4. Requirement that all franchises be brought into
compliance within one year impairs contracts
fairly and voluntarily negotiated and is a usur-
pation of local government's rights; and
WHEREAS, the Board of the National League of Cities
should have consulted with its member cities prior to approving
said compromise language;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Coun(Al of
the City of Lakewood opposes the compromise language as approved by
the Board of the National League of Cities; and
BE IT FCRTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City
of Lakewood hereby requests the Board of the League of California
Cities to modify the compromise as approved by the National League
of Cities on March 6, 1983; and
Resolution No. 83-32
0
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the
City of Lakewood forward its specific concerns to the Nation: -
League of Cities, its congressional delegation and urge the
League of California Cities to work with Its member cities to
develop specific: legislative provisions to protect the ability
of local jurisdictions to negotiate and enforce local cable
franchises.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 12th day of April, 1983.
6r -
ATTEST:
CiyCle:tk
-2-
t il
LAW OFFICES OF
BRENTON A. BLEIER
1001 0 STREET. SUITE 10 1
SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 956 to
(91 61 444.8994
April 27, 1983
Mrs. Alice Reimche
City Clerk, City of Lodi
221 West Pine
Lodi, California 95240
Dear Alice:
It was a pleasure to talk with you again on Monday regarding
the forthcoming consideration by tha Board of the League of
California Cities of a resolution pertaining to the NLC-NOTA
compromise on cable television.
As I indicated, I strongly believe that the restriction on
local aiscretion and enforcement as contained in the so-called
compromise by the National League will be devastating not only
to the larger cities who have detailed and enforceable con-
tracts with cable operators '.—t also with smaller cities such
as Lodi. In defense of their federal legislation, the cable
operators are prone to portray it as deregulation of a free
enterprise activity. However, with the exception of those
very few localities which have let multiple franchises, this
is simply not true. Most cable operators, including the
operator in Lodi, operate in a monopolistic market with no
competition. This means that the only restraint upon their
p: icing .is the total elasticity of demanC - or, in ordinary
terms, "whatever the market will bear". As a result, the
approach used by cities with increasing degrees of sophis-
tication in recent years has been that of contractual enforce-
ment. Increasingly, cities have entered into. highly structured
and enforceable contracts with the cable operators to ensure
their compliance with the promises they make to the community
at the time they enter the community and use the community
streets. For example, the contract which I have recently
drafted for the City and Councy of Sacramento runs some
three hundred pages.
Now, by "lubricating" the Congress, the cable industry
proposes to unilaterally cancel these contractual arrangements.
This of course would leave the cable operators in the larger
cities in much the same situation which they already have in
the smaller older franchises, with a monopoly position and
no restraints, either competitive or governmental.
x,1.1 7: �4
I%
It was a pleasure to talk with you again on Monday regarding
the forthcoming consideration by tha Board of the League of
California Cities of a resolution pertaining to the NLC-NOTA
compromise on cable television.
As I indicated, I strongly believe that the restriction on
local aiscretion and enforcement as contained in the so-called
compromise by the National League will be devastating not only
to the larger cities who have detailed and enforceable con-
tracts with cable operators '.—t also with smaller cities such
as Lodi. In defense of their federal legislation, the cable
operators are prone to portray it as deregulation of a free
enterprise activity. However, with the exception of those
very few localities which have let multiple franchises, this
is simply not true. Most cable operators, including the
operator in Lodi, operate in a monopolistic market with no
competition. This means that the only restraint upon their
p: icing .is the total elasticity of demanC - or, in ordinary
terms, "whatever the market will bear". As a result, the
approach used by cities with increasing degrees of sophis-
tication in recent years has been that of contractual enforce-
ment. Increasingly, cities have entered into. highly structured
and enforceable contracts with the cable operators to ensure
their compliance with the promises they make to the community
at the time they enter the community and use the community
streets. For example, the contract which I have recently
drafted for the City and Councy of Sacramento runs some
three hundred pages.
Now, by "lubricating" the Congress, the cable industry
proposes to unilaterally cancel these contractual arrangements.
This of course would leave the cable operators in the larger
cities in much the same situation which they already have in
the smaller older franchises, with a monopoly position and
no restraints, either competitive or governmental.
^cKew+.+a7t•,*"if:!"4"Aoi°°,�c!Rte'.:.F.''t.'"�?t*.."a(.'�;A�,��M1Y�' _ . , .-..-..-......... ,„i'-'."•p'f+pkl;4y^'_-,'>b•..mxwaxv�+rx,:-....+re.� .. :�wz .. _, j .. ...r- --.. .--.. ... x...�Y,�:,
i
LAW OFFICES OF
BRENTON A. BLEIER i I -a
1001 0 STREET. SUITE 101 %
SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95814 ! J 1 i , : 2 U AIM 1 ' "4
191 61 444-3994
April 27, 1983 �,i.•�:. �'•;_, �:
ViTY
Mrs. Alice Reimche
City Clerk, City of Lodi
221 West Pine
Lodi, California 95240
Dear Alice:
It was a pleasure to talk with you again on Monday regarding
the forthcoming consideration by the Board of the League of
California Cities of a resolution pertaining to the NLC-NCT A
compromise on cable television.
As I indicated, I strongly believe that the restriction on
local discretion and enforcement as contained in the so-called
compromise by the National League will be devastating not only
to the larger cities who have detailed and enforceable con-
tracts with cable operators but also with smaller cities such
as Lodi. In defense of their federal legislation, the cable
operators are prone to portray it as deregulation of a free
enterprise activity. However, with the exception of those
very few localities which have let mu-ltiple franchises, this
is simply not true. Most cable operators, including the
operator in Lodi, operate in a monopolistic market with no
competition. This means that the only restraint upon their
pricing is the total elasticity of demand, or, in ordinary
terms, "whatever the market will bear". As a result, the
approach used by cities with increasing degrees of sophis-
tication in recent years has been that of contractual enforce-
ment. Increasingly, cities have entered into highly structured
and enforceable contracts with the cable operators to ensure
their compliance with the promises they make to the community
at the time they enter the community and use the community
streets. For example, the contract which I have recently
drafted for the City and County of Sacramento runs some
three hundred pages.
Now, by "lubricating" the Congress, the cable industry
proposes to unilaterally cancel these contractual arrangements.
This of course would leave the cable operators in the larger
cities in much the same situation which they already have in
the smaller older franchises, with a monopoly position and
no restraints, either competitive or governmental.
Mrs. Alice Reimche
April 27, 1983
Page Two
2i
Worse yet, one of the key provisions which the cable industry
has sought and the National League of Cities approved was
automatic renewal of a franchise. By shifting the burden to
the City to show repeated and material breaches of the franchise
agreement (keeping in mind that most of the older agreements
such as that of Lodi are quite minimal) the cable operator is
assured of the continuance of his monopoly position. Thus,
in situations like Lodi with technologically antiquated
systems, the cable operator is removed from any pressure to
upgrade his system to provide better service to the community.
After all, he is now assured that he is "the only game in town".
Thus, the irresponsible action of the National League has
doomed smaller cities like Lodi to nonresponsive, second-rate
cable operations for the foreseeable future.
For all of these reasons, I encourage you to give careful
consideration to the resolution which will be proposed to your
Board to encourage reconsideration of the National League's
so-called compromise with the cable industry. We believe that
such reconsideration will stop the cable industry's legistative
steamroller and give all cities the opportunity to preserve
some semblance of control over the cable operators using their
streets.
I very much appreciate your courte
discussing this matter with me.
BAB/sk
Very t
andeonLin
urs,
".NTON A. BLEIER
torney at Law
APR 14
k:1T Y
April 12, 1983
Dear Colleague:
Re: Emergency Meeting on Federal Cable Legislation
I request you join me and other concerned local government.
officials for an emergency meeting on the impact of pending
federal cable communications legislation on Friday, April
22, 9 a.m. - noon.
The meeting will be held at the Joslyn Center, 339 Sheldon,
E1 Segundo.
We will discuss in detail the recent compromise on federal
cable communications legislation The compromise was
reached between the National League of Cities and the
National Cable Television Association. Unfortunately, the
compromise seriously undermines cable franchises in
California. Quick action is needed since the federal
legislation is on a "fast-track" in Washington.
The League of California Cities will consider taking a
position later this month in support -- or opposition -- to
the NLC cable compromise. It is important that we meet to
exchange views and develop a common strategy.
Please join us for this ad hoc strategy meeting on Friday,
April 22. RSVP to Barbara Gore at Lakewood City Hall, phone
866-9771, ext. 216. Enclosed is a map to the Joslyn Center.
Sincerely,
Howard L. Chambers
City Administrator
HLC:kp
5050 N. Clark Ave.. P.O. Box 158, Lakewood, CA 900714 213,1866-9771-213/773,2964
rec ons to Emergency Cable Meeting
Friday, April 22
/9:00 a.m. 12:30 p.m.
Joslyn Community Center
City of E1 Segundo
North
-1 / 1 (LOS ANGELES INTERNATIONAL AIR
PORT)
S4- fr T s 1 y �1 ���17 ��' �' q �-�!1� ' o t �+ r/y�7 /1 f qr el"A1.f.
(ho q,%kL—A IUty ) -�!y1 (u,
NLC-NOTA
Cable Pact
Draws -City
opposition
of a~ 11,11 1
"ift ape by raw ."k in ef-
~ ooM thraau ChW
&VU am mwicfpef Cable offecw)
IM A1CUZ&- %r%w@I twador
dabbed -t1w U:!It revotuti,,n
U.S. am" hat waei .erred b
saw" cities."
week to delves b$iAw- ksoor-
to •joint -
d. n.tle..t
MI,
C31wNatieael Cable
a enoitmbe opposing the ot�
Trlwleioa AsweNtioe Dora-
promise that would wetksn local
%te locntrv,
RV4WVANOU'PPWW ttrer able
eioeds eQ t
t-" WAMM to am*%@ 4W im
frabahiser is" "wfdcha-4
se�.i M her ,a,
Neva, Marr. 1{. 198. PAL 1.
- s'+ irintst .0 s • k, rn crc.
Quickly lonord trove U
invofvioe v how of ram Lit ser
cable lrsnchise agrsrwtent-
to Teca►. several c*. rabk ,d -
soon -lobe franchised cities Warr
Please Tum to Dope JR
City Join To Oppose
Compromise Cable Dill
conl,n~ from Peder ane to D•Uas, another city wked
horses were planning to P" this by Warnse, the city council 1324
week in Austin to cane up with *ednroday volcd to pursue
mtmaon artmadt for discuss" ainendntents to Ute compeontiw
or eaeuing Utat would
d the oompmmiar, with es 6Wor
the city to rote 1a reg,""
m
car city. Fan Roneeh, �oat1w
nlifars o a>nhority.
.5. Nouse aeaimt a ocMentul .�i�•t_
-Lc��c in Pius.s tate n LL -
and severrf ochct _ t that it
Dobie tovrfrete n wrff declared • _% mmin
phikrophicat crpprteltian to the rico.'
cable cmmpnwmee adopwd Afarreperw,ntativ", how -
1 by the NLC'• board of '-`Nmwtrvvdinintemirweless
Mr -r-, m Werk that the compromise
"tine NLC did not ask their 1•MWe w•a approved pansy
tom - tl�
out of mmoom fulg that vrithout it.
n 1 pet L t kghbtar uligflt per hilt tu
•rnn
•mesio nabir corrdintaloe
has &analis to cities.
saessea. aisuu+� iFat Atlanta t,,lrc vansunicatinetr
ate u�ed in the serve, ofRaa David T,aomty, a mwrt-
meat would mrip Somamrna of bet ,J the 1-grue's negotiating
dw abgity to wtforce several frart_ team on dW cable isaw. said the
c$eise mmmitmeats-finelwfing compromise "is the didereece
saw foo: millkm dedim&W to bwv.esw being mitt in rile baU-
comneuni-y wo rammbg-ol- pore and Wit taken Complete-
fer*d by United-Tnbu W Cable ly ow of the picture by IS --
of Sacramento. bill tab."
Barry (titan, cable eowatltant Las Angeles city eouocibnan
to the city d M61 -maker aed a John Fortson trod the s000rd Wag-,
foseedsr d the Natinaal Assoeis- "oiler a typical oanpromiw-.
tiara d Tda+anmuniariom of- -V-.)b ,dg's act happy but it le
hoar and Advisors, celled for • COOMFt—lase...
N LC '"*an orsaeiaation Whidn is Still. _cab_ le o in river
r•-) badly �, .. citive Y
Tbr compromise pen in querWeer-an+�_
tion, mcbedulwd to b+ adopted by iaeeta to�iewidoesTn t�sr -nem-
Ute NOTA Utas Leask. wood pro- 1 treuid
lath kxoal 6aoddsing eatborkies krt+r� Nu-
bvm nxg+lad" belt cable sews •
ie tnsawankLa Wish at her (ass lf�., anwl's kis. Zaccaria
over-dw-eir televiaioa awasheooas•�d NLCismkiegosember
eveilsbh. It would ala VMWA CWM for input oe uta seg»►-
cabir opwaso s raw- i of dwAr raw is wording before legislative
(rancluira unless, Jwy violated s 1409uW is drab ed. I
s24 of pr dewrtaiwsd staadaeds. wah"
Frondlisora, in addition. would a mow ht
bave to peg opsratorr fait MwMLA �.�co�w�L tow to
value for able rywrens in the �N+tew or lly
rvent of a buy an. to
"I regulators ands• the
ornprernier -cold be alkn..d u,
rrcrivr fivr prrront of grow
n stem revenues per year as ksuo
citior fees, psych c to grosses)
funds.
Officials kum several I*W
C"' Ld Nee that the
ro
MOMW. it passed roto r.
% dwrn the abdio u,
tree & w orrnwk;;_e ..
rr�[ • sgrermetet• ar�ri� in
farce would be requiwd un d"
the sevrrd to oomph with the
orw la,. within a rear of its
Passage.
"Tor fully understood in 19M
wha, we weer giving awe, to the .
calor menpam on bebalf of the
pubbc- and -e export something
in return." said cable off' v
B.•other Richard Emenecier
Werk ;- NtUAKUTh. who" Rar.
an Amex Cable Communi w-
tMn► Co. aero%% eppruximatel,
60.Ol1U euxrooun. "16 ry oar in-
Lerestad w changing any of t}w
rube -.