By JIM GENARO

Differing opinions about aesthetics and free speech clashed last Wednesday at a meeting of Asheville publishers, city officials and citizens about possible changes to the way newspapers are distributed in the city.

Advocates of a so-called ìgood neighborî distribution policy said that by consolidating the cityís many newspaper racks into organized, homogenous kiosks, clutter and unused boxes could be minimized, making the downtown more attractive for visitors.

However, opponents of such a policy argued that it could result in squeezing out smaller publications and that having a diverse array of newspaper racks contributes to Ashevilleís quirky character.

The meeting was organized by Asheville Community Relations Director Lauren Bradley; Sammy Cox of the Community Publishers Group; and Susan Roderick, executive director of Quality Forward, a nonprofit community-beautification group.

Among the roughly 30 people who attended that meeting at Quality Forwardís downtown office were representatives of several area† publications, as well as business leaders and a few concerned citizens.

Community Publishers Group Administrative Manager Sammy Cox, who also serves as distribution manager for Mountain Xpress, explained why he formed the organization.

The CPG was created ìto improve distribution downtown and create communication among the publications ó especially the free publications.î

The group was formed partly in response to complaints from downtown merchants about the proliferation of newspaper racks, he said.

During a study of news racks downtown, the group found that three areas had more than 15 pieces of equipment and an additional six locations had more than 10 newspaper boxes.

The CPG distributes its membersí papers in racks that are maintained by the group and which maintain a uniform aesthetic.

However, Asheville Daily Planet Publisher John North noted that the group charges a minimum membership fee of $1,000 in addition to monthly charges for each rack. This fee, North argued, could be prohibitive for new publications.

ìThere might not be a new newspaper in Asheville,î North said.

This could have a ìrepressive impact on what America is supposed to be,î North added. ìIs this what we want Asheville to be, this sort of beige place?î

However, Al Shepperd, managing editor of Real Estate Weekly, argued that the front page of a periodical is what should be colorful, not the box in which it is distributed.

ìThe cover changes every week, and thatís not beige,î Shepperd said.

Micahel Winner, who publishes The Real Estate Book, said that he would be supportive of a change to unified kiosks, but added that such a plan ìneeds to be non-exclusionaryî and not excessivly expensive.
Tim Alexander, a spokesman for the Asheville Citizen-Times expressed enthusiasm for such a system, saying, ìThereís definitely some opportunities here to clean up the aesthetics of downtown.î

Johnnie Grant, publisher of the Urban News and Observer, expressed skepticism about the agenda of the meetingís organizers.

Grant, who described herself as ìrelatively new to this viscious industry we have here in Ashevilleî noted that ìa lot of statements that are being made here are sort of leading statements.î

Meanwhile, City Attorney Bob Oast noted that a number of court rulings have placed major restrictions on what cities can do to regulate distribution of newspapers.

ìThe First Amendment is a pretty significnat protection to people who want to get their ideas out there,î Oast told the group.

Matt Doors, who said he was speaking as a citizen, expressed concern that a newspaper-distribution plan might be publicly funded.

ìAs a taxpayer, I donít like the idea of my tax money being used to interfere with small publications,î Doors said. ìThis does feel like an attack on the small publicaitons.î

Collyn Riley, who said she aspires to start her own newspaper in Asheville someday, said that the diversity of publications in Asheville is ìa great thing and it shouldnít be taken away.î

The homogenous newspaper boxes of the CPG are ìnot as inspiring ... not as creativeî as the eclectic mix of colorful boxes downtown, she added.

However, Ashton Walton, who did not identify his affiliations, argued that in some places, such as Biltmore Village, residents made great efforts to create a unified aesthetic.

ìI think there needs to be some consideration of respect for what theyíre trying to do,î Walton said. ìIf there is a right to put the boxes up, thereís also the duty to do it with some respect for the businesses that are there.î
Jerry Johnson, publisher of The Laurel, agreed, saying, ìWe all suffer if we offend the merhcants in the area.î
He said that for him, joining the CPG was a matter of economics; it simply seemed cheaper than buying his own racks.

ìDemocracy works, but capitalism and the market speaks for itself,î he said.

He added that his main priority is to ìmake money, because thatís what a publication is all about.î

Jeff Fobes, publisher of Mountain Xpress, said that while he supports consolidation of newsracks, ìpart of me is repulsed by the need to adhere to Biltmore Villageís aesthetic, because itís so plain.î

At the same time, he joked, it would be rude to put up newspaper boxes there ìshaped like a pomegranate.î
ìIs the goal here to make the whole city Biltmore Village?î North asked.

ìMy goal is to be here to hear you,î Bradley replied.

ìUntil everybody gets what they want or until you guys get your agenda passed?î Riely responded.

A woman, who identified herself as ìa taxpayer and an interested citizen,î countered Northís question, asking, ìDo we want all of Asheville to look like Disney World?î

She added that having multiple newsracks, many of which are plastic and highly colorful, was not in keeping with the historic nature of many parts of Asheville.

ìWith all due respect,î Grant answered, ìwith the coming of The Ellington ó in terms of aethetics ó we canít compare that to the boxes.î

The group took no action, but agreed to meet again to discuss the issue further.