Letters to the Editor

by the Readers

Get Your News Box Responses Here!

I have a great deal of affection for Bruce Schimmel. When I was in private practice, he was a client, and I consider him a friend. But I think he's been away from the actual business of running a newspaper for too long.

Over the past several weeks, Schimmel has engaged in chest-beating about the city's ordinance regulating news boxes in Center City. [Loose Canon, Sept. 11, 18, 25 and Oct. 2, 2003]. To read him, you'd think that the city has embarked upon a no-holds-barred campaign to rid the streets of Center City of newspaper boxes, particularly those of alternative publications.

But Schimmel has it wrong. To believe what he says is to believe that the city has no power to control sidewalk speech activities. If Schimmel were still my client, here's what I'd tell him.

First, the city has the power to impose reasonable time, place and manner limits on newspaper distribution, even on the very public city sidewalks. The city can't regulate content, but it can tackle sloppy distribution practices, cheap equipment and dirty news boxes.

Second, the city also can distinguish among publications by their frequency of publication because that deals with the manner of distribution, a fair topic for regulation. Dailies have a shorter shelf-life than weeklies, weeklies go more quickly than biweeklies and so on. The idea is that newspapers with a shorter shelf-life should be quicker for readers to get to than publications that will be available for two weeks or a month. Thus, while corners can be limited to daily and weekly publications, less frequently published newspapers will be a mere 75 feet away. And given the vast amount of sidewalk space, there is absolutely no reason to think that new publications will be shut out.

Third, the use of corrals to line up news boxes is possibly the best compromise between the municipal desire for neat streets and the publishers' need to use their newspaper trademarks on the street. Corrals frame the news boxes nicely and, by the way, also make them more secure. This idea originated with Paul Levy of the Center City District. Schimmel and the others who are grumbling about this ordinance seem not to realize that approaches used in other cities make all newspapers -- dailies and alternatives -- disappear into drab, uniform modular units that obliterate the newspapers' colors e.g., orange City Paper boxes, purple Philadelphia Gay News, red Daily News, etc. No one -- certainly not The Inquirer, Daily News or the city -- disputes that Philadelphia is lucky to have all these voices available. And the publishers are lucky to be able to use their trademarks to attract their readers on the street.

Fourth, it's worth noting that the city, the Center City District and big and small publishers worked together to find a mutually agreeable solution. Anyone who wanted to be at the drafting table was welcome back in the late 1990s when the ordinance was being crafted. (The ordinance was passed in 1999, and is just now being enforced.) I was one of the people at the table, and I sat alongside representatives of City Paper, Philadelphia Weekly, the Philadelphia Gay News, USA Today and others.

So I guess it¹s not surprising that I am not up in arms against this ordinance. It took compromise on all sides, of course, but I think the law does a decent job of recognizing the way newspaper distribution works best for readers while, at the same time, honoring the city¹s demand for safety and a neat appearance. (And while the city bungled badly last week by snatching news boxes it considered ¹public hazards,¹ city officials have promised to provide notice before they ever do such a thing again. Just this once, I¹ll give them the benefit of the doubt. If it happens again, we at The Inquirer and Daily News might rethink our position.)

One last thing: Dan Rottenberg, former Welcomat editor (another former client whom I consider a friend), said in a letter [Sept. 25] that the ordinance bans the new Philadelphia Independent from downtown sidewalks. That's just not so. Dan, you're a journalist -- you should know better.

Katherine Hatton, General counsel
The Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News

Baltimore Avenue Fallout

Daryl Gale's Baltimore Avenue Freeze Out [Oct. 9, 2003) could have stated that L&I is being used to gentrify a West Philly neighborhood even more strongly than it did. One powerful example that wasn't given in the article is that of the Whole Truth Church in the 4800 block. This church has been having a regular sidewalk sale for 20 years without any problems. Suddenly, after all this time, L&I stopped them from doing that. How long can a storefront church last without that income?

Ann Dixon
West Philadelphia

As a resident of West Philadelphia who has been frequenting the Baltimore Avenue area since 1995, I can personally attest to the L&I crackdown that the University City District is using to drive the mostly minority-owned and/or patronized businesses out to make room for yuppie businesses. All the businesses that have traditionally been there have seen a large jump in the number of inspections from L&I in the last year. Eli Massar's denial of any pattern insults our intelligence.

The UCD has a history of targeting businesses that are minority-owned and/or patronized. The UCD has been trying to get the business corridor on 40th Street declared blighted, even though every storefront is occupied. The fact that many of the patrons may be low-income and/or minorities does not make them blighted. I wonder why these city districts focus only on business corridors like these that border gentrified, mostly white neighborhoods, instead of focusing on areas that have a high number of vacancies, are far away from gentrified neighborhoods and are actually blighted. I guess it is easier to steal a business district that has already been developed by minority business people than to put out the investment to develop one from scratch.

UCD: West Philly is on to your game.

Jamie Graham
West Philadelphia

Take That, Pill Popper!

Your views on the dismissal of Rush Limbaugh as a result of his comments about Donovan McNabb display a common misunderstanding of our right to freedom of speech [Rush to Judgment, Darrell Greenwald, Slant, Oct. 9, 2003]. Our right to freedom of speech is protected from infringement by the government, not private organizations with whom we may have a contractual relationship. In such a situation, the ACLU would have no interest in this matter. This is between Limbaugh and his employer. Whether his comments were correct, racist or otherwise, is a fair subject of discussion, but not protected by the Constitution from public disapprobation.

Gilbert S. Feinberg, attorney-at-law
Center City

Rush Limbaugh¹s suggestion that Donovan McNabb is overrated because of his race is clearly a racist viewpoint. Why must race be the cardinal factor by which one is judged, by the media or the public? Whether or not Donovan actually is overrated as a quarterback is debatable (for the record, I think he is pretty good and will turn it around this season). But to suggest that he is overrated because of the color of his skin is uncalled for. Could it be possible, just maybe, that people want to see him do well because he appears to be a classy, likable guy?

Gabe Zashin
Philadelphia

This ain't no free speech issue, for God's sake. No one gives a shit if that asshole spouts off day and night. ESPN hired him; they have the right to fire him. And anyway, the gasbag resigned!

Nick Sullivan
Upper Darby

While Rush Limbaugh¹s uncanny candor may ruffle liberal feathers, the truth of his statements continues to shine. Donovan McNabb is a solid athlete. And he is barely deserving to start as an NFL QB right now.

Facts sting. Period.

Andre Johnson
Philadelphia

Once again, the phantom of political correctness is used to mask the real media censorship in this country. Darrell Greenwald claims that the Thought Police won a major victory over Rush Limbaugh -- even though he wasn't fired. What is he implying, then, that Limbaugh was converted?

This gets to the real nub of the issue, however: It's the owners of the media, not some amorphous Thought Police, that have the power of censorship. While the market compels them to pay some attention to public opinion -- which, when it happens to contradict conservative ideologues like Greenwald, is derided as political correctness -- it also requires that they pay less attention to low-income viewers than high-income, still more attention to advertisers, and most of all to their own interests as members of the owning class. That's why Limbaugh and many others equally far to the right of the average citizen get countless hours of airtime, while leftists are rarely allowed any platform at all.

Eric Hamell
North Philadelphia