Laserfiche WebLink
D. The Morganton, North Carolina Case <br />In October 1966, the City of Morganton grsnted <br />a 20-year nonexclusive franchise for the construction <br />and operation of a cable system to Morganton TV Cable, <br />Inc. The system was transferred thereafter to Suburban <br />Cablevieion, Inc. and then in July 1974 to Madison <br />Cablevlsion, Inc. (hereinafter "Madison"), a wholly - <br />owned subsidiary of TCI. <br />As the franchise was due to expire in October <br />1986, Madison submitted a propcoal for renewal to the <br />City in December 1983 About that time, the City hired <br />a consultant to analyze its cable needs. <br />In September 1984, the City issued a Request <br />for Proposals in which it invited proposals for the <br />provision of cable service. Proposals were received <br />from Madison, from other cable cohpanies and from the <br />City itself. A public hearing on the proposals was <br />held in November 1984 <br />In April 1985, the City Council tentatively <br />concluded that Madienn'e request fnr —owal al.nuld <br />be denied. The Council then negotiated with the Company <br />about purchasing the system. In September 1985, the <br />Council enacted an ordinance farma:ly denying Madison's <br />request for renewal, denying the propceols submitted <br />b} other companies, and declaring its intention to <br />establish and operate its ovn municipal system. <br />Madison then filed suit for declaratory and <br />injunctive relief; for judicial review of the denial <br />of its renewal request pursuant to Section 626 of the <br />Cable Act; and for damages (including punitive damages), <br />attorneys' fees and costs. Madison Cablevision, Inc. v. <br />City of Morganton, No. SH-C-86-5 (N.D.N.C. filed Jan. 6, <br />1986). <br />Madison alleges that the denial of its renewal <br />proposal infringes its First Amendment rights; violates <br />its equal protection rights; constitutes a taking of <br />property without due process of law; violates federal <br />and state antitrust laws; violates 42 U.S.C. f 1983; <br />constitutes tortious interference with the company's <br />contractual rights; and lastly, violates trio provisions <br />of the North Carclina Constitution and statutes <br />stipulating the purposes for which revenue bonds may <br />be issued and for which public funds from taxation may <br />be spent. <br />