Actually, they're now calling it a PSOA (Public Service Operating Agreement) rather than an LMA (Lease Management Agreement). Not sure when the nomenclature changed, or why, but putting that aside, we're now seeing various people advocating a leasing arrangement for WBAI.
This post by one of the WBAI naysayers on the Blue Board pretty much sums up the "for" argument:
> ...WHO ACTUALLY BENEFITS CONCRETELY WITH AN LMA HERE?...
assuming the lessee performs according to contract, pacifica benefits by relieving itself of the risk of continued BAI cash suck. pacifica can use the lease period to hold the license whiled developing a plan for a BAI renaissance, and to accumulate or obtain funding to execute the plan. listeners in the NYC metro will benefit immediately from new programming, and ultimately from a reborn BAI.
>WHO GETS A PAID GIG?
two WBAI employees, TBD.
> WHO IS RETAINED IN THE STAFF?
up to two, TBD.
> WHAT OPTIONS THAT ARE BEING EXPLORED RETAIN SOME PROGRAMS? >WHICH ONES?
the remaining national program, still announced as ``from pacifica,'' is DN!. other than that, pacifica has no real national identity.
> IS THIS DISCUSSION WHAT IS GOING ON ALREADY AND FOR QUITE SOME TIME????
we don't know what goes on in those numerous executive sessions.
> What gives?
the capacity to support BAI nonsense and malfeasance gave out.
Our thoughts on the subject:
Why would a PSOA be desirable?
Because a PSOA can do for WBAI what WBAI cannot do for itself.
What is that?
A PSOA can run commercials. WBAI is not allowed to run commercials because of rules that regulate Pacifica stations. Pacifica has to lease out WBAI to a third party in order to do that.
Don't we see the hypocrisy here? Or at least the irony that a glitch is making all of this necessary in order for WBAI to be "reborn"? Or are we missing something?