Why didn't The Times pick Montclair for one of its "hyper-local" websites?

[Michael Schreiber]

Can someone please explain to me why Maplewood has been selected as the primary battleground in the experiment to create viable hyperlocal news sites? Montclair, with its abundance on media pros, seems like a no brainer, and I'm sure Baristanet has the traffic to prove it (maybe that's why the competition is staying away).

Maplewood, on the other hand, has:
- The Local, run by the Times.
- The Maplewoodian, run by Joe Strupp, Senior editor of Editor and Publisher
- Maplewood Patch, run by Patch.com, recently acquired by AOL

Seems to me like the Maplewood market is saturated. I question whether or not even a relatively affluent community like Maplewood can generate enough local ad revenue to support that many local news initiatives. Really, from what I understand, it's really only AOL and the Times that are competing. Evidently, Strupp, is not looking to cash in - which is probably wise, given his site looks like it was made in 1992 (sorry, Joe -- don't hate me).

Truth is, the AOL and Times sites are pretty different. To put it simply, Patch is a bit more newsy and traditional in its design and The Local is more of a basic blog roll. If they are both able to capture enough readers and ad dollars to sustain themselves, then that's great news for journalism. The industry could use a functional revenue model, right? Both The Times and AOL are running this experiment in a few different markets.

I wonder if they've even tested the ad sales waters... and what, if anything, they are paying freelancers?