🚀 go-pugleaf

I received the following note in response to my offhanded comment
about KQED's new building in my recent posting about the departures
of Kevin Pursglove and Ginger Casey. As you'll see at the end,
Michael asked me to post it on his behalf. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:24:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Pusateri <pusateri@netcom.com>
Subject: KQED New Building

I am a new user of the internet and do not feel comfortable replying in
the ba.broadcast newsgroup, but I felt the need to reply to your comments
regarding the new KQED building.  

I was involved in the design of the technical systems for both the
television station and the radio station.  I managed the installation of
the facility and the crossovers.

First of all, the old building was a disaster.  The quake had opened
cracks in the building's ceiling and the walls were literally falling
apart.  The cost of rebuilding at the 8th street site would be astronmical
due to the fact that the entire building work have to be brought to 1991
standards (handicap access, earthquake code, fire code).  

The new building was purchased from the government at an extremely good
price.  The neighborhood was not very nice, but the presence of KQED has
already changed for the better.  The new facilites were designed to
optimize the spaces for best provide for local production.  I designed
much of the facility and know for a fact that we reused ever possible bit
of equipment to keep the cost down.  I could name many examples of cost
cutting, but they are fairly esoteric.  San Francisco now has a top
quality public TV/radio station. 

I agree that there are some places that are extravagantly done, but look
into the salaries paid to the employees.  No one is working in a sweat
shop.  I know both Kevin Pursglove and Ginger Casey.  The were treated
quite well and their pay cuts came well after the layoff of numerous
engineers and David Hosely, the station manager.

I hope you see my point that KQED is not a gold and marble palace, nor a
shack.  It is a reasonable facility that has the capability to serve the
public quite well.  Problems at KQED cannot be laid at the door of the new
building, only in the longstanding practices of the management.

Feel free to post this or send copies to others.

Michael Pusateri
pusateri@netcom.com


------------------------------------------------------------------

I wrote back to Michael mentioning that I originally said "<insert
your favorite comment about KQED spending money on a new building>"
primarily to head off snider comments on the subject. As it happens,
I used to be an engineer at KQED-FM and I know the old building
was getting crowded and outdated. I hadn't realized about the severe
damage from the earthquake. I do think, however, that valid concerns
have been raised (here in ba.broadcast, and in the campaign statements
of the non-board-nominated candidates) about the new building.

Anyway, Michael and I are evidently in agreement about the real
source of the problems: KQED's management.


Patty

-- 

    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
    ::   Patty Winter N6BIS	       Internet: winter@apple.com  ::	     
    ::   Sunnyvale, California	       AMPRNet: 44.4.0.44          ::
    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::