The people behind the bill say it will save money, but when was the last time anyone in Harrisburg saved you money?
From the editorial:
Is there one taxpayer in this state who believes his or her taxes will go down if this becomes law?Read the full editorial at the newspaper's Web site.
Is there one taxpayer who believes giving state government the right to set up permanent public notice Web sites, maintained by state employees, will be cheaper than the same service provided by private industry?
And cost is only part of the equation. Should the state government be in charge of informing taxpayers how their state, counties, boroughs and townships plan to spend tax money? The issue once again is information about how local government works.
Just this week those without Internet access would have missed notices that the borough of Pottstown was accepting bids for materials for the wastewater treatment plant and that the zoning hearing boards in East Vincent and Lower Pottsgrove townships would be holding hearings on property development requests.
No other state in this nation has gone to Internet-only legal advertising and there is a reason. The most significant reason is a large portion of the public would be uninformed.
1 comment:
As you know, Tony, there's a compromise reform measure that relies on free market competition from well-established free weeklies with audited circulations. Today, only pay-to-read publications have a monopoly on this form of advertising, and a license to price gouge. So many do, because they can and because over 175 dailies and weeklies have bit the dust since the last revision of the law in 1976.
House Bill 677 would keep Legal Advertising in print, lower rates and increase notice through bona fide competition. Pay-to-read papers like yours have censored this discussion in print and online. The following was posted on your employer's website for about an hour, until it was removed without cause. You were one of several CC'D on the "what happened?" still awaiting reply:
Dear Editors:
I would like to know who removed -- and by what criteria -- the comment pasted below from pottsmerc.com. It appeared briefly under the May 14 editorial "Defending the publication of public notices," which opens ironically with the question: "Who should be in charge of informing the public...?"
The questions raised are directly on point, and the language did not appear to violate any reasonable standards of "abuse." It's disappointing that Commonwealth Clips readers, who for some reason were directed to this editorial on the 18th, the 22nd, and once again on the 26th, did not receive the full benefit of the "informing" role the editorial trumpets. I look forward to learning that this incident of censorship had some basis beyond inconvenience.
I'd also appreciate any answers you might have for the questions raised, but understand that open records apply only to the buyer, not the seller, in this instance.
Respectfully,
Jim Haigh
"Just how much do Journal Register's pay-to-read dailies and weeklies combined bill our local governments each year?
I somehow missed that in your argument. Enuff to send a reporter to Harrisburg to cover last week's hearing on Legal Advertising Reform?
Since you lead with your role in informing the public, and you chose not to send a fact-seeker to actually inform us on this issue, perhaps you could share some data from the AP service you subscribe to. They noted in their report that the costs to taxpayers have, in fact been calculated: Over $26 Million, just to local governments. That doesn't even count the Sheriff Sales, the Estate Notices, the stuff new businesses are forced to advertise....
You also might want to mention that another proposal is being discussed, was the actual topic of the hearing you chose to ignore: Competition from free community papers, as under House Bill 677, just getting rid of the "must-charge-reader" requirement for papers to take legal advertising. Any clue how many have gone to every home, every week, for years in communities where Journal Register closed it's paid weeklies?
If these free community papers are well-read -- must be since they're still standing -- why shouldn't they be allowed to compete with your Parent Company's regional pay-to-read dailies? Seems to me that removing the "price per copy" requirement, adding established community papers to the mix, would satisfy all your arguments against the internet.
And since you're in the informing business, would you please share with your readers the total number of local government entities that only have a Journal Register owned publication as a legal option to place legal advertising?"
Post a Comment