Over the past several weeks, I’ve been candid with you about the crossroads we’re facing in local news. The landscape of newspapers is in flux, and I’ve been weighing whether or not to continue the print editions of our papers. It’s not a decision I take lightly, and the outpouring of support from the Atascadero community has reminded me just how deeply this publication matters.
So many of you have reached out — sharing ideas, offering encouragement, and simply letting me know what the paper means to you. I cannot thank you enough. It has been humbling to hear that even as the way people consume news changes, the value of what we do has not diminished.
Many readers have told me they rely on our websites and daily emails to stay connected and informed. That feedback means a great deal. When I was recently covering the Templeton Feed & Grain fire, I heard directly from fire chiefs who said they look to our online platforms first when events are unfolding. That speaks volumes about the world we live in today. News at our fingertips has become the expectation, and we’ve worked hard to meet that need — without putting up a paywall. That could change depending on where we go next, but for now, accessibility remains a core priority. I’d also like to thank Ann Little for taking the time to meet with me at Malibu Brew on Saturday to talk through ideas. Conversations like that remind me how invested our neighbors are in seeing local news survive and thrive.
As for the ongoing discussion surrounding the “Central Coast Zoo” name change, the city council has not responded to Rolfe Nelson’s request to revisit the idea of restoring the original Atascadero Zoo name or opening the matter up for community discussion. Given the amount of money already spent marketing the new name, it seems unlikely the city will reverse course. What is particularly interesting, however, is that Nelson’s letter was not published on the city’s website. This raises fair questions — especially since I was told that all letters must be published, including ones that were far more controversial, such as the defamatory letter about Charles Paddock. Why one letter is deemed publishable and another is not is an issue that deserves clarification.
As I reflect on all of this, I want to again express my gratitude to our advertisers, subscribers, readers, and community supporters. Every subscription and every ad has made it possible for us to keep publishing all these years. One point I want to make absolutely clear: our monthly magazines will continue, and so will our online coverage of all newsworthy stories. The only question on the table is the future of the weekly print edition.
Your continued support proves one thing — while online chatter may suggest otherwise, true community backing is alive and well. We’ll keep you informed on what comes next.
