pm_810506 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-5- Di scuss i on Chairman Johnson opened the discussion by indicating the Commission realized the complexities of the problem, and acknowledged it was not an easily resolv- able matter. He felt considerable thought should be given to the question and indicated as he viewed the matter now, it would not be possible to make a decision this evening. He further indicated the process might include a fur- ther discussion at the next meeting on a work session type basis, with the possible conclusion to the hearings at the following meeting, which would be in July. Mr. Rukavina indicated that similar to the restrictions placed on signs for business, he felt if newspapers were going to use the public right-of-way for delivery of their papers, they should be required to use it in a responsible manner. Mrs. Dressler indicated she also felt there was a problem with the actual delivery. She had observed many instances where the motor route drivers were driving on the wrong side of the road or driving from the right hand side of their car, which seemed to present an unsafe condition. Mr. Mastel indicated a particular interest in learning the comparative costs of foot and motor route delivery. He indicated he felt this was essential to making a determination on the issue. Mr. Mark Anderson, attorney representing the St. Paul newspapers, indicated the subject of comparative costs was a matter covered under anti-trust laws and discussion could not be very specific as to costs, but could be and must be in more general terms. Two motor route carriers who were present at the meeting indicated that, based on costs, it would be practically speaking, impossible for them to deliver papers in a manner calling for them to get out of their cars and walk to each door. It would be impossible to deliver the number of papers necessary to make it profitable. Other representatives from the St. Paul paper indicated that all manner of deliery had been used and was in use at the current time, but that the problem with home delivery was that there were an insufficient number of carriers willing or available to deliver in that way. It appeared at the time that the next best solution was to use the tubes. It was indicated that the newspaper's greatest concern is getting the newspaper to the homeowner in a timely and consistent manner. Mr. Kehr offered a suggestion that was currently being used by a neighbor of his. He suggested that an additional mail box be constructed for the use of the newspapers, as well as delivery of other types of newspaper matter. He suggested that these tubes, or mail boxes then be color coded to indicate which newspaper the individual takes. Mrs. Larry Gross, 1036 Burke Avenue, related an experience with newspaper tubes that was basically unfavorable and expressed her desire to have the newspaper tubes banned from the City.