What's next for local journalism?

On the Journal Register Co. corporate Web site, there are slides from a presentation that the company made two years ago a financial meeting. One slide, on page 29, is titled "Proven Ability to Delever." The typo says it all about the attention the JRC gives to its editorial products.

The JRC’s stock price has fallen below the cost of a single copy of a newspaper and it now faces delisting from the New York Stock Exchange.

The JRC has hired an investment bank “as an adviser as it weighs restructuring,” reports the New York Times. (For more background see Editor & Publisher; JRC Q4 2007 earnings call transcript from Seeking Alpha; Debt Keeps Journal Register a Hold, Zacks.com via Yahoo Finance.

So that’s it.

The JRC is sinking under its debt and a management approach that emphasized cost-cutting over everything else.

What’s here to save?

Restructuring can lead to anything. If the JRC can get rid of some of its debt, find new investors and corporate management committed to typo-free excellence, then perhaps restructuring may help.

It may also lead to a sell-off of assets, something the JRC is already doing. It sold the Middletown Press building and is reportedly interested in selling The Herald’s downtown building. Perhaps The Herald will be sold as well and become independent again. One can only hope.

Where does this leave The Herald?

If The Herald can find new owners committed to local journalism, then anything is possible.

Why are newspapers important?

Call me old fashion, but I still think the role of reporters and editors is to be watchdogs – to ask difficult questions that help keep government honest.

If The Herald doesn't survive the JRC then what's left for New Britain? What options?

The Courant? Even if The Herald disappears, The Courant isn’t going to add more reporters to try to improve its coverage. It is no longer a locally owned regional newspaper. It’s a JRC in waiting.

The Record Journal in Meriden? This newspaper has fought off the JRC to stay independent. It has proven that independents can survive as long as they keep faith with their communities and turn out a good product. The newspaper surrounds New Britain with weekly newspapers, including The Berlin Citizen and The Plainville Citizen. These are good newspapers and expanding into New Britain is an obvious move.

It's possible that online only operations similar to the New Haven Independent will emerge. The Independent is professionally run publication that appears to be operating on start-up funds supplied by community groups. It's the type of emerging model that could work. The New Britain Community News is embryonic, but has potential to develop into an online focal point for community journalism.

Local blogs. Any person with the inclination can offer news about their street, neighborhood and even the city. It’s the sum total of these little efforts that can help keep government honest and engaged with its citizens. It’s this grassroots model that I think has potential of renewing journalism in New Britain.

Carvel deal needs critical reporting

The Herald’s economic development coverage is mostly press release rewriting. There’s no critical analysis. I realize its reporters have tough workloads, but if a newspaper wants to avoid becoming irrelevant it has to ask the hard questions.

Why be critical of The Herald and its coverage of Carvel -- a company that plans to build 120,000 square foot plant at Booth and Myrtle Streets that will employ 265 people?

In these kinds of agreements, details matter. The city is desperate for economic development and developers know it and it's the newspaper’s job to make sure the city isn’t giving away too much to get it.

Here's my experience on that point.

In mid-1980s, New Britain had 15 acres of undeveloped land in downtown. This land was said to be so important to the city’s future that it was nicknamed “the jewels.”

Without going into its long history or details, the city ended up turning over the land to one developer who could not produce the office park detailed in its pretty architectural renderings. Only one building went up, One Liberty Square -- and that was built only after the city committed to using one third of it for the school department administrative headquarters. The state has since built a court house on the property.

I was one of the reporters working on that story at the time. Did we raise the right questions? Dig deep enough? I’ll let others make that assessment. But I certainly did learn from it.

It is good news that Carvel is building in the city and it is a far different deal then Liberty Square project. No question about it. But what did the state and city offer to bring Carvel to this city?

Here are some questions:

About the site itself: How much of the development land is Carvel getting? Did the city give up more property than it should have? What impact does this project have on future development on that parcel? [The Courant put the site at 13.5 acres. How much is Carvel taking?]

Are there additional costs not reported? For instance, will road, traffic light improvements or other infrastructure work be needed to support this development and, if so, who pays for it?

Are there any environmental issues?

What will the building look like? Granted, anything is probably better than vacant land. But this facility is, afterall, in a very visible near-downtown location and may have an impact on future development. Will there be any effort to try to ensure that the facility not only adds tax revenue, but is developed in such a way as to encourage additional development?

Labor: What types of jobs are being created and what will they pay? Sometimes these deals can create incentives to hire workers locally. Is that the case here? A Herald story mentions some job training money. Job training for what?

Just curious: Rocky Hill is loosing in the deal, since Carvel corporate is relocating. What’s the tax revenue loss in that community?

Are there any potential deal-breakers?

What’s the real cost of this project? The big issue is always tax breaks. The Herald report is very unclear about the tax incentives, the cost of those incentives and the return -- tax revenue -- from it. It’s reporting doesn’t go much beyond what I read in the governor’s press release. Compare the two:

The Herald:

Use of the proposed building, with an estimated value of $16.3 million in facilities, machinery and equipment, is expected to result in more than $500,000 in real and personal property tax revenue for the city. The state could see an economic return estimated to be in excess of $23 million over 10 years.

State Governor’s press release:

The proposed building with an estimated value of $16 million will result in over $500,000 in real and personal property tax revenue for the City. As important to New Britain this project is — representing an investment by Celebration Foods of $16,260,000 in new facilities and machinery and equipment — the state will also see an economic return estimated to be in excess of $23 million over a 10-year period.

The Courant explains that the $500,000 is annual revenue to the city. (That’s seems good, but it’s also why I’m interested in knowing whether there are any gotchas that – such as the infrastructrure improvements – that cut into that revenue gain.)

This is what the Courant reported:

Celebration Foods is expected to generate more than $500,000 in real estate and personal property tax revenue for the city each year and more than $23 million for the state over 10 years, according to Rell's office. It will be one of the city's top 10 taxpayers, Stewart said.

The city and the state Department of Economic and Community Development offered Celebration, which had considered about 50 other communities, several incentives. City incentives include a $1 million grant and a five-year, 80 percent discount on real and personal property taxes, which will be reimbursed to the city by the state, Stewart said.

One report in The Herald did quote an economist at the Connecticut Business & Industry Association who said Carvel would have a help spur other businesses. That was a good source to call.

It’s easy to raise questions, as I did here, away from any deadline and with the benefit of time and distance. And some of these questions will take time to answer. But there’s ample opportunity for additional reporting about this project.

Is there a double standard here?

New Britain is a city of small landlords and many of the owners of three-family units, in particular, do not live in these buildings.

The city is considering a certificate of apartment occupancy requirement aimed at absentee landlords. The Herald has a report. It would require inspection and certification that meets housing code or face fines.

But I have to question the fairness of what the Common Council is considering. According to The Herald the proposal:

It would have required all three-family and above properties that were non-owner occupied to register the property and be inspected with the city before renting the units out.

If I understand this correctly, it means that owner-occupied buildings are exempt and don't have to meet the same standards of compliance. There is a double standard here and it’s a political one. Landlords hate this requirement.

The idea of requiring a certificate of occupancy has come up before. My memory may be faulty here, but I believe the city had a certificate of occupancy requirement that it rescinded because of landlord complaints about it. Many landlords didn't discover the need for a certificate of occupancy until a tenant stopped paying rent and then used the lack of certificate as leverage in Housing Court.

The latest certificate of occupancy proposal is being used as a hammer to go after bad actors, those absentee landlords who have let property fall into disrepair. If a certificate of occupancy was about ensuring safe housing, then the requirement would exist for any rental unit.

All landlords are required to meet housing code. But the city doesn't have enough housing inspectors to create an effective system to monitor and enforce housing conditions. It only responds to complaints.

Absentee landlord is a term that has a negative connotation attached to it but the vast majority of these property owners, I strongly believe, are hardworking people who pay taxes to the city and try to do the right thing. Most absentee landlords don't want to see the value of their investment decline. A bad tenant can cause mountains of grief and expense.

The city is going to have couple any certificate of occupancy requirement with an education program and reach out to landlords and try to help them from being ensnared in costly legal processes.