4 responses to “News/Times/Trib Management Shuffle”

1. Spendthrift

   January 31, 2011

   Exactly right on the redevelopment agencies! These editors have been driving their paper into the ground for a decade and so they expect the state to do the same. Money does grow on trees in Sac.

2. Lorne

   February 7, 2011

   In terms of other local media reshuffling, for those who don’t know, Burlingame Patch (www.burlingame.patch.com)- or, more broadly, its national Patch.com “umbrella,” is owned by AOL. AOL just announced the acquisition of Huffington Post; as part of the merger, Arianna Huffington was named new editor-in-chief of Patch:
   http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/02/06/financial/f213530S22.DTL

3. Paloma Pam

   February 7, 2011

   I am ready to cancel the San Mateo County Times because it is not the “Times” anymore. It’s warmed over San Jose news. The Daily Journal is more local. Forget the Patch too. Arianna hasn’t a clue.

4. Joe

   March 24, 2011

   Today’s News/Times editorial continues down this confused path on redevelopment agencies with this excerpt:
   A good case has been made for reforming redevelopment, which clearly has strayed from its purpose in many areas. But the threat to whack it abruptly has only forced cities throughout the state to scramble to shelter money they’d counted on for worthwhile projects. A thoughtful overhaul of redevelopment funding over the next year would be enormously more practical and productive.
   Last year, nearly 60 percent of Santa Clara voters approved investing $114 million of public funds to help build a 49ers stadium. It’s no fly-by-night project; it’s had years of public debate. This week’s council decision on the $4 million early payment toward site preparation appears to protect city interests, although it should obligate the 49ers to be exceptionally transparent in their use of public money.
   Of course it would have been better to delay any payments, but Sacramento is forcing cities to make choices like this. Lawmakers and the governor need to consider these unintended consequences as they ponder the fate of redevelopment agencies.
   So Santa Clara voters want to spend $114M on a stadium and the News/Times thinks that is a “worthwhile project”. But wait, when they say “public funds” they don’t mean Santa Clara’s funds, they mean funds from all over the state being redirected to Santa Clara. When I look at the cuts the County, City and school districts are making, a new stadium doesn’t stack up unless Santa Clara wants to foot the whole bill itself.