Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Media Ownership La Times topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council urges preserving local control of Los Angeles Times; motion passes 13-1
Summary
The City Council passed a nonbinding motion urging that the Los Angeles Times remain locally controlled or sold to local buyers; the measure passed 13-1 with Councilmember Holden recorded as the lone no vote.
The City Council approved a motion urging the Chandler family, then-owner of the Los Angeles Times, to consider maintaining local ownership or selling to local buyers that would keep key operations in the city. The motion passed on the council floor with a roll call that recorded 13 ayes and 1 no; the transcript notes Councilmember Holden voted no.
Councilmembers described the Los Angeles Times as an institution with historical importance to the city and urged efforts to retain its local ties. Several members urged that, if ownership changes, corporate headquarters and major operations remain in Los Angeles; others couched the action as a public appeal rather than a binding city directive.
Why it matters: Council members framed the sale as part of a broader concern about the loss of local control and corporate migration of headquarters. They connected the newspaper issue to wider economic and civic concerns about regional capital flows.
Debate highlights: - Supporters said it is important to try to keep the Times under local control; one councilmember said the city should urge the Chandler family to “give off $250,000,000 from their own pockets and stay here in LA,” while other members noted the practical limits of municipal authority over private sales. - Councilwoman Goldberg framed the sale as part of a larger trend of capital leaving California, calling the phenomenon “a disturbing trend” and urging the council to register its view.
Vote and outcome: The motion (item 16 on the agenda) passed 13–1. The transcript records that Councilmember Holden cast the sole no vote and the item was approved “forthwith.”
Ending: Supporters said the council’s motion was a statement of civic preference rather than a regulatory action; they asked that the city message the importance of local ownership to the Chandler family and potential buyers.
