Hide Article Text (OCR)
ie down policy. I-1 (Continued on Page 2, Col. 4 'is growing and has good climate* I 'I I—MWr-r-iYuman Questions Speedydion byI Co b-IMic-CDud-1is8,[i-City Council on Antennavision Requestl*iiViiOrrtiseleThe speed with which the Yuma Cdy Council granted tiie rights of way to Antennavision was ques-tinned before the Council yesterday.Joe Farkas, Yuma radio and TV man, stated that he was not ques-ownersvoke it. We have a non-exclusive down so that set revot able license. Every possible have to subscribe to Antennavi-, safeguard for the city has been * ton?” Schuman said he has asked iwould ! ^Cii ___- lay Hasgiven.”i Farkas replied that “therewasnothing in the paper about contracts. The issue is not TV. fortioning whether or not the city was or against, hut whether or not allright or wrong. He said he thought the questions that could be asked“that the Counciland rsked thatacted9 IMy°tu reconsider , your action in some way until thethe otherofpeople of Yuma hearside. Farkas added that BruceMerrill, president of Antennavision, “has had an PCX’ applicationhastily’ j have been answeredSaid Schuman, “It is unfortunate that we don’t get the press in this community but that’s not un-der our control.Couple of Thing*Citv Attorney John B. Wisely Jr.tot•d.id-nart-rdts-ededin for ov er a year. The license! interjected, “There are a coup e was blocked by KIVA. I don’t of things to consider. Even f this think it is out of order to ask for! was a franchise it wouldn’t he ex-two weeks or 30 days.” elusive The contract is revocable.Fatkas also said that the story We have no control over who goes on *h* purchase of KIVA appeared into the TV business. We have no in ?he paper on? day and four j legal authority to control them days later the Council ti*ok action, j and can’t control the quality of theAll We Did programs ”City Councilman Richard Schu- Farkas replied that he had been“All we did was give i told that when Antennavisionthe question before hut would ask ! it again concerning this matter, Bute Merrill, owner of Antennavision, was m the audience He | rose to say that “we think highly j of KIVA. It rounded the proi t j comer some tune ago Now that j it is in that position we intend to!it there.” He doubted that jeverybody would subscribe to An-tenn ivision and felt that KIVA would grow with the community.)He added that their biggest con-; cern would le somebody coming ;n ard putting in Channel 13 (Yuma’s authorized second chan- •C!iBtiHlt;MiLaFab-tC-lhoNlt;Pinefl.Concerning the operation of K1V V and Antennavision, Farkas a»kelt;i Merrill if the two were t N«PIneC.iYlt;be run by the same corporation.* skTheman stated,ns them the right of way to our ease-ot*; men* Yuma Attorney Ralph ilej Brandt who represents KIVA and er ! Ant mnavision, explained the city contract. “The contract itself has a sav.ng clause. It is revocable. If. for cause in the opinion of thestrings wires on poles, other eom-answer was yes. He also asked “if one goes broke does thejD other one too?” Merrill replied,Clt; that Valiev Telecasting Co. is thepames could not use them. W;i licensee of KIV’A and also nas theicyi jinngeCouncil we do not keep the let -ly said that this power would no? come through the City Council but some other agency like the FOCDuring the discussion, Farkas added, “If Antennavision doe-n t enough subscribers, how couldcontract with navision.Farkas washave a copystudy it. Thi!tw» citv for Anien-geter and spirit of what we repre- , the people l*e protected tn*m the1 sented, the City Council can re-1 owners allowing KIVA to be runtold that he couldof the contract toCouncil indicated not reconsider its action of granting the right of wayto Antemuvision.LLaF(Ithat * wouldr«K*Ji31
Newspaper Details
Yuma Sun
Yuma, Arizona, US
Wed, Oct 05, 1960
Page 1
Full Page
Clipped by
Sammi B.
NA 09 Jul 2022
Other Publications Near Yuma, Arizona
Yuma Weekly Sun
Yuma Arizona Sentinel
Sun Advertiser
Yuma Morning Sun
Yuma Valley News
