Tom Champion tries to justify parking changes

[ron_newman]

The Somerville Journal asked Tom Champion some questions about the new parking regulations, which were enacted without advance notice or democratic process by an unelected body, and are set to go into effect on August 1st.

Read the answers here:
Start saving: Parking meter rates and hours to increase, permit parking to expand citywide

(thanks to: Somerville Journal Blog)

(See also: very long DSLJ discussion from earlier this week
and Somerviile Chamber of Commerce's description of the changes)

Comments

Re: non-compete? ha!

[tober.livejournal.com]

I apologize, I had truly thought that this was due to a non-compete, as I have memories of a past movie marathon at the Somerville Theatre (I forget which one it was) in which one of the films desired for the marathon could not be shown because it was showing at the Kendall Square Cinema at the same time. I am curious as to precisely how Landmark prevents films from being available to you and Kendall simultaneously - is this essentially a matter of them bullying the distributors and/or offering them better terms? It would seem there might be a viable anti-trust action there. In any case, let me close by saying that, although I have and plan to continue to patronize both the Somerville Theatre and Kendall Square Cinema, I like the Somerville Theatre better (and also better than any of the other for-profit cinemas in Boston/Cambridge).

Re: non-compete? ha!

[svilletheatre.livejournal.com]

Thanks Tober - I didn't take it personally! And I appreciate your kind comments on the theatre. Hey, I go to the Kendall too; it's a great theater regardless of it's corporate booking practices.

This is a complicated thing in the industry called "clearance" by which one theater 'clears' (i.e. blocks) another if they so desire. For example, when Loews owned Harvard Square, they cleared us; AMC does not have a clearance policy, so we are able to play day and date with Harvard now. Fresh Pond has clearance over us currently; we cannot book their films until they decide to drop them. This practice is as old as the film industry and isn't going anywhere. It has been challenged in court and the plaintiffs have never won.

Re: non-compete? ha!

[m00n.livejournal.com]

How is this obviously anti-competitive tactic allowed to continue with court approval!? I can't see how this setup does anything but harm the consumer! Doesn't this kind of mean that if someone has clearance over their neighbors and they get a film that's popular enough, they can charge pretty much anything they want for something?

Also, what is it that gives one theater clearance over another?

I am not a lawyer

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

It has been challenged in court and the plaintiffs have never won.

Not completely true:

334 US 131 (1948) US v. Paramount

http://supreme.justia.com/us/334/131/

Isn't it true that most lawsuits that allege clearance end up settling before trial?