Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> I <br />I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br />:1 <br /> I <br /> I <br /> i <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> i <br /> <br />WILL|AM <br /> <br />DUNKLEY AND BENNETT <br /> LAW OFF-lC:ES <br /> <br /> !?.5rlFIR-~T flANK pLAC:£ C~T <br /> <br /> PILLSOURY OENTER <br /> <br /> 200 SOUTH SIXTH STREET <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />F ROM: <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />Anoka/Champlin/Ramsey Cable Commissioners .$ j.~ <br />Thomas D. Creighton, Legal Consu~tant~'~ _~./~ <br /> <br />Teleprompter Franchise Draft /~/~/~z,~./~.O.~x%~'"~{'-/( <br />January 29, 1982 <br /> <br /> Reasonable progress was being made throughout January <br />on the drafting of the Teleprompter franchise for the Quad <br />City area. However, in mid-January, the United States Supreme <br />Court handed down its first major decision regarding the <br /> <br />regulation of cable television by cities. Community <br /> <br />Communications Company, Inc. vs. City of Boulder, Colorado <br /> <br />decided January 13, 1982, was decided against the City of <br /> <br />Boulder as it related to their rights to regulate certain <br />parts of their cable television system. Although we heard <br />about the decision as soon as it was issued in January, I was <br />not able to receive a complete copy of the opinion from the <br />Supreme Court until January 25th of this month. Unfortunately, <br />the drafting and finalization of the Teleprompter Quad Cities <br />franchise was halted as soon as I heard of the Supreme Court <br />decision because of the impact it may have on your ability to <br />regulate cable television through the franchise. Obviously, <br />it did not make sense to enter into a franchise document that <br /> <br />I <br /> <br /> <br />