Public Access Saved, but Studio is Closing!

Not so fast, BAVC. The lease on the studios at 1720 Market Street expire on April 30, 2010. Rent is paid through this date with TAXPAYERS' money and Cable SUBSCRIBERS' fees. Shutting down anytime earlier than this date risks serious LEGAL costs and
political capital for BAVC, as well as, Public Access TV in San Francisco for the future.

With a $5 Million Annual Operating Budget, BAVC surely can find an alternative to shutting down Public Access TV. Renegotiate
a new lease at a reduced market rate and keep Public Access going for generations to come.

People need to realize that the concept of public access television is dead. I'm sure the people at BAVC are wishing they never stepped up to this challenge. Zane Blainey ran the channel into the ground and BAVC will be the the boot that stomped the bug.

Public Access is NOT Public Television. There is a huge difference. It should not be run by the corporates. It should be run by the people. Everywhere we look in our lives we have expert, college educated idiots that have ruined everything from our financial system, our health system and much more.

I resent losing our public access channel and facilities, but the ball will just keep on rollin". I tried to step up with what I thought was a solid proposal, but...

Check out my plan at http://www.skatinplace.com/

BAVC has a contractual legal duty and obligation to keep open the 1720 Market Street Studios through April 30, 2010, at the very least. This is INDISPUTABLE. The current lease can be renegotiated using Comcast Grant Money ($375k) and SF Capital Expenditure $ ($300k/year) and extended for a minimum of 3-5 more years. This issue will be on the SF Board of Supervisors' agenda very soon.

In the meantime, SF Public Access Producers need to stop being so cynical and defeatist in their attitudes towards what has
been a community treasure and an important alternative media voice to the M$M for the past 30+ years. We need to keep
it going as an independent media force for generations to come!

Perhaps what is not widely known are the terms of the lease at 1720 Market. While the lease may end April 30 2010 (not sure if that specific date is exactly right), that doesn't mean that BAVC simply hands over the keys to the landlord on April 29th. There's much more to it than that. Obviously, BAVC has to remove all the production equipment that's at that location and relocate it to their other facilities. Does that take 4 months? No. But, there's more to vacating than simply hauling out the equipment. The lease requires the tenant (BAVC) to return the space back to its original condition. That space started out as just as a raw cement floor and ceiling shell, with no interior walls and all the other infrastructure built into that facility. The space has to be complete deconstructed, which is not a simply process -- it's essentially a construction project in reverse. That will take months to do properly and responsibly.

Should anyone be happy that BAVC is having to close the 1720 Market facilities? No. BAVC is simply carrying out the plan the City put forth and is funding. BAVC is not receiving funding from the City to continue a renewed lease at 1720 Market. If the City, who ultimately owns and controls the resource, is not willing to fund it, why should BAVC be on the hook for that cost? It is not BAVC's mission or duty to provide and fund access for San Francisco. That is the City's responsibility, as the owner of the resource.

The City receives millions of dollars per year in cable-related revenues (franchise fees), that it does use in part to fund the operational cost of its own government access channel, SFGTV, but it has elected to spend practically none of those same revenues on public access. Other cities across the U.S. (some, not all) DO spend a portion of franchise fees revenues on public access -- but not San Francisco. This is a Board of Supervisors decision. The City also has access to access funds provided through a new California state law known as DIVCA. The City is choosing to use that available access money in a certain way that other cities are not. (The heart of this matter has to do with money used for "capital" expenses versus used for "operational" expenses -- and how cities define what are capital and operational expenses. By law, under most circumstances DIVCA access funds must be used for capital uses only -- but what qualifies as a capital expense is left to interpretation, and cities up and down California are coming up with their own less-conservative definitions allowing them more flexibility to fund public access.)