Standard Examiner and SB 208 - Editorial

This mornings Standard Examiner editorial attempts to explain why newspapers should be the distributors of the coveted Legal Notices. (See Here)  They lay out a set of unorganized scare tactics to encourage older readers to write their legislators and vote against this money saving piece of legislation.  Where many cities will be savings $10,000 to $50,000, the Standard Examiner would ask you keep the money flowing to them because "newspapers are the best, most efficient place to publish these notices."  

Std-X claims more people than ever read the newspaper:  - True nearly 70 percent of Internet users in America go online to read the news (See Pew Research Center).  Their next claim is they already recognize legal notices need to go online, so they publish their notices online to the Standard Examiner Website.  They failed to mention they charge you a subscription fee to go online and read them. If legal notices are on their free site, I did a search and couldn't find them.  

Next, the editorial staff makes an interesting claim regarding Internet usage: 

"A third of all people will lose access to the notices"

Where did this statistic come from?  Did they really just make this up?  This argument makes no sense. Yes, nearly a third of Americans do not log on to the Internet for news.  But does that mean they read the newspaper too.  The Deseret News has report only 12 out 100 residents receive the print newspaper.  That is 202,000 people.  Moving notices online would give access to a lot more people nearly 498,000 people. (See Here)

One of my favorite lines was in reference to the future state website:

 If by legislative fiat, legal notices are relegated to a clunky, non-user friendly government Web site, fewer Utahns will have access to the notices.

I am sorry, have you seen UtahLegalNotices.Com.  If this isn't a clunky, non-user friendly website, I don't know what is.  They website isn't even formatted right for regular browsers and some of the info on it is from 2005.  There is a six step guide on how to log on, which was last updated in 2006.  I will admit they are working on a new beta site which is supposed to be much better, but they have been trying to use their web technology for nearly four years and all they have come up with is a clunky, non-user friendly website.    The infrastructure for a legal notices website is already in place and to get a good idea of what the state-run website would look like check out Utah Public Meeting Notices. Then feel free to compare the two websites.

The Standard calls SB 208 a loser because it will not reach enough people, but by their own statements people go online to read the news. If we can make the comparison of 498,000 Internet users in Utah and 70 percent go online for the news, that is 348,000 people. In comparison to 202,000 newspaper subscribers, I am not worried about reaching everyone.  The real worry is people who only subscribe for legal notices possibly will leave stop subscribing, but don't worry that Standard will still charge you for their website.  

They call SB 208 a loser because there will now be political influence on legal notices. I can see it now, Sen. Urquhart is looking for a good foreclosure because he will soon have the power to hold up the publishing of a notice so he can get his hands on it.  Seriously, is this really an argument.  

SB 208 is a loser because it will cost the state money to house these notices.  Lets not forget the $100,000 SLC will SAVE in the first year.  Lets not forget hundreds of thousands of dollars local cities will save or the hundreds of dollars local residents will save by this effort.  

Finally the Standard claims media is - free of bias.  To believe any of us are free of bias is absurd and ignorant.  The Standard Editorials are always the bias of the editorial staff, how can one claim they are free of bias.  That is like saying Fox News caters to republicans and democrats alike.

I thoroughly enjoy reading Standard Editorials; however not only was this the worst written editorial, but they are completely wrong.

To see more posts and actually facts read the following:

• Internet Usage vs. Newspaper Subscriptions - From Where I Sit
  
• Online Legal Notice Posting - Lincolns Legislative Blog
  
• SB 208
  

Oh and here is the editorial:

• The Standard Editorial 
  

What is going on in South Ogden?

It has been nearly a week since we have had a quality post on the From Where I Sit blog. That is no guarantee this post will be of top caliber. I took a hiatus from posting last week to accomplish some personal goals around the home. However it is time for a summary of what is happening:

SB 208 - We have been following this piece of legislation closely with a number of posts an quality debate between Joel Campbell and myself. The idea is to move public legal notices to an online website managed by the State of Utah.  This would essentially pull it from newspapers whom are understandably hesitant to the change.  Today the Utah League of City and Towns has endorsed the legislation giving it a huge boost. Of course they would, the savings to SLC alone would be $100,000. Lincoln's Legislative Blog (blog of ULCT) has a nice post explaining some more details of the bill. You can check out their post here (See Here).

HB 274 - Our Esteemed Rep. Wallis has been trying to push his first piece of legislation through.  It seems to have been bounced around the legislature.  During the House Political Subdivisions Standing Committee they discussed the bill regarding some of the issues.  It appears Mr. Wallis has done some good work to update the bill to make it an effective piece of legislation.    Rep. Wallis gave a great presentation with some guest speakers explaining how better use of the impact fees will protect and save the state money.  Everyone agrees impact fees is very confusing and this legislation will help clarify some of the confusion.  Mr. Wallis was praised for taking the time to work with everyone involved make the bill a top quality piece of legislation. The bill passed through committee with a favorable recommendation.   The overall feeling was Rep. Wallis has done such a great job on his first bill and people are very impressed at his work ethic. We made a great decision voting him to the legislature.

HB 66 - A funky property tax bill that threatened public education was defeated today.  No worries there. I have been receiving great emails about this as of lately.  People were passionate about this one.

$2.5 Million South Ogden Basketball Court - As far as we know this is a go, even thought South Ogden City Council admits the majority of South Ogden will not use the dang thing.  I hope we don't come back and wish we had done more on this one.  With the Municipal Elections coming up, it will be interesting to see what issues are brought up.  Raising taxes in election year is usually not popular.  

South Ogden City is having a short city council meeting to discuss the 2008-2009 fiscal budget.  I am excited to hear how we are doing fiscally going into this year.  Will Council member Bradly and Scott Darrington stick to their methodology that South Ogden is not in trouble financially? We will see tomorrow, however I will not be in attendance for tomorrows meeting.  I will be relying on the minutes and blog readers to fill me in on the conversation.  I will be attending our Weber County Lincoln Day Dinner and hope to Twitter and Blog about the night.

We will keep you posted soon.

Internet Usage vs. Newspaper Subscribers

Since the announcement of SB 208 there have been a lot of statistics thrown around about who uses the internet and who doesn't. The newspaper's argument is not enough people use the internet in Utah, especially the 65 and older. They also believe the control should stay in a third parties hands. SB 208 supporters say lots of people use the internet and the legislature can stay neutral on the publishing of legal notices. Since facts have been called into question on both sides of the isle, we thought it would be interesting to research this information and find some real answers.
Lets begin our research using the medium in question--the newspaper:
According to the Deseret News (Dec 17, 2008, See Here), Utah is the 2nd highest state in the nation for internet usage. In 2007 we hit 82 percent of households using the internet, this is up from 63 percent two years previous (Oct, 31, 2005, See Here). Now according the United States Census, in 2005 there were 791,929 households in Utah. (2005, See Here). Now let's assume we are still in 2005 and only 63 percent of the households use the internet. 63 percent of our 791,929 households in Utah gives us 498,915 households are internet users. Still how many people use the internet? The average household size is 3.07 giving us nearly 1,531,669 potential internet users in the state of Utah. Even if there is only one person in the household who uses the internet, this would be 498,915 people.
Now for newspaper subscribers: In the same article from Dec 17, 2008 Utah was the 6th lowest state in newspaper subscriptions. The 2007 data reported we had 12 subscribers for over 100 residents. With a population of 2,427,350 this equals 202,279 people.
The difference shows at least 296,000 more people use the internet than subscribe to the print newspaper.
Now for demographics. Over the age of 65, the Salt Lake tribune reported, 70 percent of this demographic do not have the internet. (See Here) The Pew Research Center & American Life Project (same place the D-News got some of their 2005 data) actually shows 41 percent of people over the age of 65 use the internet. Interestingly between the ages of 50-64 - 72 percent use the internet. (See Here) Als, their 2009 Generations Report states:

"While just over one-fourth (26%) of 70-75 year olds were online in 2005, 45% of that age group is currently online (2009)." (See Here, Page 2)

Since the introduction of broadband, the report has found older generation usage of the internet has tripled, with 37 percent going online for the purpose of reading the news. (Page 5)
We have now established more people are using the internet than reading the print newspaper. We have also established more of the older generation is using the internet for news than believed and this is increasing very fast. What you didn't know is 70 percent of internet users go online to read the news. (Page 5); by this rational we can assume a lot of people read newspapers, either online or in print. The newspapers have all ready recognized this, they know legal notices needed to go online; therefore they have created a website to do so (See Here). Now the legislature wants create a website to do the same and now we have an argument.
What is this argument really about? Not internet usage and demographics.
It is about two things:
1. Money
Both entities will charge you to publish your legal notices. It is going to come down to who will do it cheaper and save tax payers money. If the newspapers new legal notices web page charges the same rates or higher, they lose. If the Utah website charges higher rates than newspapers, they lose. SB 208 has shed light on an issue that cuts into the pockets of Utahns. Supporting SB 208 means we want the cheapest and most efficient way of getting this done. If the bill fails and pushes newspapers to give the best and cheapest service possible, then so be it.
2. Power
Newspapers like being the distributors of information. Joel Campbell in a recent comment to this blog made mention I want you all to believe bloggers are the only ones who can communicate online. He would in turn want you to believe only newspapers can distribute legal notices and the possibility of another entity (government or not) could even attempt to do so would be preposterous. Newspapers are not the only medium to receive information and to believe legal notices BELONG in newspapers is misguided. Will removal of the these legal notices bring down newspapers? No. It will take away some of the power newspapers have been used to as distributors of information.
This is not an anti-media bill, nor are my comments. However I feel passionate about finding ways to ensure people save money. Publishing of legal notices costs people money, in some cases a lot of money. If we can easy that burden, that fee, that tax, I say lets do it.

SLTribune - WEB ONLY Editorial Against SB 208

The Salt Lake Tribune posted an editorial against SB 208 yesterday afternoon. Their argument is not enough people use the Internet to justify moving legal notices to a state website. Ironically this editorial was posted as a WEB ONLY editorial.  (See Here).  

The Tribune opines SB 208 would disenfranchise 70 percent of adults over the age of 65 whom all get their news via newspapers.  So why push your argument only to the Internet, if the people whom you want to speak out against this bill don't have Internet access?  I guess the Internet was just a faster and easier way of getting your message across, not to mention cheaper.

SB 208 would transfer the publishing of public notices in newspapers to a state website.  The idea would be to cut the cost of public notices and make it easier for Utahns to find the needed information.  The Tribune argues there is no guarantee this will be cheaper and their soon to be released website is much better.  However what they don't tell you is there is legislation to remove the current public notice fee cap (See SB 161); which would allow them to charge more for public notices.  If their website is going to be cheaper, why do they want to remove the cap to charge more?

I am sure this editorial will be published in the Tribune either Saturday or Sunday, but it is quite ironic it was a web only special to begin with.

MediaOne and their E-Edition Scam – It is All About the Money

I am a reader of the both the Deseret News, Salt Lake Tribune and the Standard Examiner. Fortunately, since the creation of the Internet I have been able to read all three via their respective websites. I use their free editions and have been very happy with their websites. I learned today that MediaOne is charging people for the E-edition of the newspaper regardless if you have a compute or not. In fact the cost is higher than their Sunday only Print Editions. If you get the Sunday Only paper you are being overcharged for their electronic edition of the paper. Today—I canceled my subscriptions.

In my renewal notice for the newspaper and I noticed next to each line item on the bill it says I was receiving the E-Edition of the paper. Not knowing what this was, I went to the Tribune website and found their e-edition at the top. I remember now deciding never to purchase it since the majority if the information is in their free edition. Am I getting charged for an e-edition I do not need? I called MediaOne to ask if I was being charged. The conversation went like this:

{BenJoe} Hello, I have been getting three Sunday papers for the last few months so my wife can clip coupons. I was wondering if you could tell me if I am being charged for the E-editions of the paper since it is included in my bill.

{Vanessa} Yes you are it is required to have the e-edition if you get the Sunday paper.

{BenJoe} Really, well how much is the e-edition?

{Vanessa} [Approximately] $6.00 a month per paper.

{BenJoe} So each month you are charging me $18 for an e-edition that I don't use. I just get the Sunday paper for the coupons.

{Vanessa} Yes, that is our policy if you get the Sunday paper only, you must have the E-edition.

{BenJoe} What if I didn't have a computer?

{Vanessa} You would still have to pay for the e-edition.

{BenJoe} So with a 12-week renewal will end up charging me $54 for the E-edition?

{Vanessa} Yes. This is our policy.

{BenJoe} My renewal only costs $82.00 for a 12- week renewal, so th cost difference is $28.00. Are you telling me it is more expensive to get the e-edition of your paper than to just get a Sunday paper?

{Vanessa} Yes, that it is our policy, you must have both. You can avoid this if you went to a daily paper. But the Sunday paper comes with the E-edition.

{BenJoe} Please cancel my subscriptions.

{Vanessa} OK, thanks that is done.

Do you see the scam? They are charging you MORE for Internet usage of a paper than the regular Sunday Print paper. A chunk of my coupon savings have been eradicated due to an e-edition I never use.

This same thing is happening with their legal notices in the paper and will continue to get worse. HB 161 is designed to remove caps on publishing of legal notices, then their NEW website will launch just in time to OVERCHARGE the consumer for things that should be free or at least cheaper! Believe me I am not anti-media. I love the media and enjoy reading multiple newspapers every day, but this is ridicules. The newspapers will try to squeeze every penny out of the consumer as possible; this is all about the money. SB 208 would help elevate some of this cost. Their own argument against SB 208 is not enough people have computers to use the system, is now called into question when they are charging people who don't have a computer and get the Sunday only paper.

Yesterday I spoke with a woman who runs a daycare business, she told me of the hundreds of dollars she spends every year in posting legal notices for their daycare. They are required by law to do this and it is a huge cost to them. A bill like SB 208 would help free up some of the much needed cash flow in her business. I urge the support of SB 206 and cancel your Sunday papers.

Now I need to go tell my wife.

Comments welcome.

Argument Against SB 208

Since yesterdays introduction of SB 208 the blogosphere has been swarming with activity, including activity from the Legislative Monitor for the Utah Press Association—Joel Campbell (aka Foiguy). See His Blog Here. He has made the rounds to the blogs emailing and posting the following argument against SB 208. His post to my blog came around 2:24 am, so I know he was up late

Here is his post:

The truth is that newspapers get it. A simple phone call or questions of legislators who are familiar with the idea would have shown that the Utah Press Association agrees on the the need to expand the reach and accessibility of use of public notice. However, we believe that public notice should be both in newspapers and on the Web. For the past two years, with the agreement of former Senate President John Valentine and Sen. Dennis Stowell, R-Parowan, Utah's newspapers have developed a new centralized Web site that is now in beta testing. Also, for several years we have maintained and continue to maintain, utahlegalnotices.com. Both of these Web sites have been searchable by key words. The new Web site will be RSS feed capable and a fully searchable database of statewide public notices. One will also be able to subscribe to e-mail feeds on a particular key word. We believe that we have developed one of the most sophisticated legal notice Web sites in the United States.

The Utah Press Association has also pledged to create an advertising campaign that could help citizens better understand and access public notices. As has been the case
for centuries, public notice is best served by a third-party, independent source. There should be a be check and balance on government power. In other words, should the fox be watching the henhouse when it comes to legal notices? Also, should the government be in the business of creating its own communications bureaucracy? Also, there are real costs associated with creating and maintaining a public notice Web site. Currently, along with the initial startup costs, the Utah Public Meeting Notice Web site has at least one full-time staff and ongoing costs through the Utah Department of Archives.

Joel Campbell
Utah Press Association
Legislative Monitor

Mr. Campbell debates some good points regarding government and their roll in this process. But I think there is a flaw in this thinking. He says they have already developed and are working on a better system for posting legal notices. Their website http://www.utahlegalnotices.com/ and their new website that is being tested http://legals.mediaoneutah.com/ are the examples of such work.

Will this really be cheaper for the tax payer to use?

Part of the goal for SB 208 is to save the tax payer money. If it is cheaper to use utahlegalnotices.com then why does legislation like SB 161 exist (See Here). This removes the maximum charge for legal notices; giving publishers an opportunity to charge higher rates on the publishing of legal notices. As long as legislation like this exists then the idea of newspapers running their own website concerns me. They will still charge the same amount if not higher to offset costs. Remember, the goal of the UPA is to keep this in the hands of the newspaper. The feel this is where it belongs, you can read this on their legal notices website:

Utah Press Association is announcing it's intent to keep public notices where they belong... in the Newspapers. Every year we fight the battle to keep Legal Notices in the paper - and not just published on government websites. With the implement of www . utahlegalnotices . com several years ago, we had one more arrow in our arsenal. Even though a time consuming process of uploading legal notices, we have only 2% non-compliance. The system currently in place is working to the level that we, as a group of fighting newspapers, need.

If this is not a war cry, I don't know what is. Did you notice that last line? "The system currently in place is working to the level that we, a group of fighting newspapers, need." Do they feel they need this or are entitled to it?

The newspaper system has been monopolizing this system far too long and now they are afraid of losing it. With cities like St. George spending nearly $20,000 a year in fees for public notices, newspapers are scared to lose that kind of revenue.

SB 208 is not anti-media; it is to help the tax payer. If doing so means taking it out of the hands of the media, then so be it.

Comments welcome.

SB 208 – Watch out Newspapers!

Today I was introduced to SB 208 – Creating a Legal Notice Online Depository (my title not the bills). In connection with the Senate Site and Senator Steve Urquhart a press conference was held for bloggers regarding this bill. It was a great experience to call in and watch the press conference from South Ogden; however I think I will make an effort to get down there for future ones. Senator Urquhart did a great job moderating the conversation and helping us understand the questions asked. I think this is a unique method of enlisting bloggers behind the cause of a piece of legislation, especially since it is sure to bring heated debate from the newspaper lobby.

This potential legislation would develop a searchable online database for all legal notices in the State. Currently Newspapers have the monopoly on the publishing of legal notices. It is estimated tax payers spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on these legal notices alone. Sen. Urquhart mentioned some people have even been forced in to foreclosure because of inability to pay the legal notice publication fees. SB 208 would create a depository for all legal notices and make it cheaper than posting it in the newspaper, saving city government and the regular tax payer thousands of potential dollars. The bill piggy backs on the already popular public meeting notices website (See Here) and would follow a similar format. Citizens could log on and pay a small fee to upload their legal notice, and then it could be searched by topic, city and date.

"We want to create better notice and a bigger pool of people who know what is
going on," Senator Urquhart.

SB 208 could do just that, make it easier for people to find notices and cheaper for those who need to post them. This is a win/win for the consumer and local government. However, look deeper and you will see turbulence on the horizon from the newspapers of Utah. As newspapers see circulation drop, classified ad space has dwindled and ad revenue is disappearing from competition such as KSL.COM and the internet. You know there will be an all out battle to keep legal notices in the newspaper and away from a central website. This is a form of revenue for newspapers and the apparent need for such revenue is demonstrated in legislation being proposed to remove caps on legal notice publishing fees. A quick Google search brought up a website that helps newspapers publish legal notices and has already posted info against such legislation. (See here: http://www.utahlegalnotices.com/) This poorly designed and out of date website attempts to keep a placeholder on the internet to thwart such discussions of central depositories. I am sure this website will be updated quickly as the esteemed Senators bill is prepared.

On the national front, Arizona and South Dakota are working on similar legislation and have received scathing editorials from the local newspapers demanding such legislation be stopped. Their arguments include: pulling legal notices from papers cuts off the public from information, not enough people have the internet or a computer and therefore miss this important information. (Source: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/) To believe newspapers are the central and only form of communication is ignorant and pathetic. To counter these arguments you simple need to gather some basic statistics from the Newspaper Association of America. On their website, http://www.naa.org/, you can see they don't even classify legal notices as an area read by most people. According to their 2008 readership report only 95 Million adults read the daily paper and 113 Million read the Sunday paper. Computer user statistics, according to Computer Industry in America, shows there are 264 Million PC users and 220 Million internet users, as of Jan. 2009.

The argument we are cutting readers off from Legal Notices just doesn't hold water. More people have computers and use the internet than read the newspaper. Senator Urquhart's bill puts money back into the tax payers pocket and helps push information out to nearly 51 percent more people than a regular newspaper will. The newspaper industry is concerned about the loss of revenue to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Do not be fooled by the future editorials and reports, this is about money for them. This is probably why Senator Urquhart wanted bloggers to get this information to help counter act the newspaper attacks to come. Smart.

Whatever the motives, I enjoyed the blogger brief and I support SB 208