Fwd: Re: Clear Channel, consolidation, etc.

[Aaron Read <aread@speakeasy.net>]

>To: "Boston Radio Interest" <boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
>From: Aaron Read <aread@speakeasy.net>
>Subject: Re: Clear Channel, consolidation, etc.
>
>At 12:30 PM 10/20/2003, Dan Strassberg wrote:
>>CCU, in its arrogance, seems to have completely missed the boat on Oak Hill.
>>What they ought to do is move WKOX there in a way that does not involve any
>>tower construction. That COULD be done; WKOX could operate from WUNR's two
>>existing towers with 50 kW-D and something close to 5 kW-N (maybe more than
>>close to; maybe a full 5 kw-N) DA-2. Once the 50 kW (daytime; 5 kW-N)
>>station was operating from the site and nobody died from it, the opposition
>>ought to fall into disarray, putting CCU/WUNR/Beasley in a position to
>>construct the five-tower proposal that would allow WUNR to increase to 20
>>kW-U DA-1,
>
>
>I dunno, Dan.  After attending that public hearing a few months ago, I'm 
>inclined to think the Oak Hill crew will fight anything and everything - 
>no matter how small - with their dying breaths.  There were a lot of 
>senior citizens at the meeting and that's a demographic that historically 
>has time and inclination to get heavily involved in politics.   This crew 
>really wants WUNR gone, period...but they realized that's an unrealistic 
>goal so they'll fight anything and everything that means any sort of 
>expansion (i.e. anything that means more wattage - regardless of what the 
>actually effects of more wattage are).
>
>I also don't think they'll be likely to fall into disarray after a power 
>increase and nobody dies from it...there are very visible (well, audible) 
>effects from WUNR already present....the music from the toliet plumbing 
>pipes being the most infamous, but it's everywhere in their phones, 
>computers and TV's, too.  I don't have much sympathy for the 
>residents...they claim that the towers are a highly-visible eyesore 
>already, so they must've seen 'em when looking to buy a house there.   And 
>not a single person that's come forward can claim they've been there 
>before WUNR was, so I say caveat emptor.
>
>However, in explaining their actions and reactions, they've already got 
>very visible, if ultimately physically harmless, problems from their 
>perspective, and they're not going to get BETTER with more wattage 
>there....even I know that.  So I think they'll fight no matter what.
>
> From that perspective, CCU's strategy makes sense...why fight two long 
> nasty battles?  Might as well only fight one...
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Aaron "Bishop" Read             aread@speakeasy.net
>FriedBagels Consulting          AOL-IM: readaaron
>http://www.friedbagels.com      Boston, MA