Saturday, May 7, 2011
Change With a Straight Face Barrels Into the Castro
By Scott James, New York Times
05.07.11
There’s an old saying in San Francisco: Market Street is straight, until it reaches the Castro.
Cartographically true, it refers to the city’s famously gay mecca. But these days, there are concerns that the neighborhood is becoming slightly less bent.
A Different Light Bookstore, which specialized in gay and lesbian literature for 26 years, shut last weekend — the latest in a series of closings of longtime businesses that were gay-owned and operated or catered to gay clientele. The neighborhood is littered with empty storefronts.
Amid this gloom, however, there is one burst of excitement that has crowds lining up, drawing visitors from throughout the Bay Area and beyond: Sunday brunch at Lime on Market.
With “bottomless Mimosas,” the restaurant and club has become so popular that it can take weeks to get a reservation. Patrons regularly defy stanchions and block sidewalks as they wait to cram inside where techno pop music blares at rock concert decibels.
“It’s the only place like L.A. in San Francisco,” a British man said last month as he was shooed inside by the bouncer.
The crowd, to a large extent, is straight.
But even in a part of the city known for anything-goes partying, the scene at Lime has soured some residents and led them to ask, What’s happening to our neighborhood?
Scott Wiener, who represents the neighborhood on the Board of Supervisors, said his office had received a litany of complaints in recent months.
“A lot of extremely drunk people behaving obnoxiously loud, urinating in public, vomiting,” Mr. Wiener said, running through a list of concerns from constituents. “A few accounts of homophobic slurs,” he added, but he thought those incidents were rare and asked that they be played down.
There have also been reports of locals’ casting anti-straight aspersions at Lime patrons.
But most of the frustrations seem to center on the idea that outsiders have invaded the Castro primarily for one reason: to get drunk.
Visits to Lime on several Sunday afternoons in March and April documented a number of incidents: patrons drinking what appeared to be alcohol outside the club; customers so groggy they had to be held upright; people staggering from the club and walking directly into moving traffic; and puddles of vomit sullying the block.
“It’s an issue because of the behavior that’s happening as a result of overserving,” said Andrea Aiello, executive director of the Castro/Upper Market Community Benefit District, a neighborhood improvement program.
For $7, customers can consume unlimited Mimosas (bottomless Bloody Marys are $12) — a recession-friendly offering. Lime is one of several establishments in the city now serving alcohol this way.
Such all-you-can-drink promotions are legal, but “definitely a concern, as is anything that promotes intoxication,” said John Carr, spokesman for the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. “It’s frowned upon.”
The results of this bargain-basement inebriation have overwhelmed some nearby businesses. There have been reports of brawling, and male customers have been spotted relieving themselves on the walls of nearby shops and residences. On Sundays, two businesses have posted “no restrooms” signs to keep tipsy Lime customers away. (The lines can be long for Lime’s restrooms.)
Ms. Aiello said that her organization reached out last month to the club’s owner, Greg Bronstein, to work on resolving the problems, but that he was unresponsive. Mr. Bronstein twice scheduled interviews for this column, but failed to follow through and stopped responding to messages.
Mr. Wiener said he had spoken to Mr. Bronstein and elicited a promise to control customers. On one recent Sunday the club’s exasperated doorman, who looked like a male Grace Jones, was seen struggling to control the crowd to little avail.
The controversy swirling around Lime has hit at a time when the neighborhood is suffering. In addition to the bookstore’s closing, four local restaurants went out of business in recent weeks, and in previous months longtime record and video shops have disappeared. Other businesses are also reportedly teetering on failure.
Bevan Dufty, the district’s former supervisor and a current mayoral candidate, said the neighborhood was in transition. He blamed economics — not sexual orientation.
“This is a fallout from the economic collapse,” Mr. Dufty said, “and the recovery was always expected to be slow.”
Indeed, when the details were considered, each closing appeared to be due to fiscal realities. For example, retail sales of books, videos and music have been affected nearly everywhere by Internet commerce, and some businesses failed when leases expired and parties could not agree to new terms.
Still, the totality of so many losses of established gay businesses has been felt. The Castro has been an enclave for gay men and lesbians since the 1970s. Harvey Milk, the assassinated gay civil rights leader, set in motion a national movement from a humble camera shop there.
The district has never been exclusively gay (one-third of residents self-identify as gay men or lesbians, compared with 13 percent in the city), but there has been some trouble in the past between residents and visitors. A large Halloween street party raged peacefully for years until it became a popular destination for tens of thousands of revelers — many of them heterosexual — from elsewhere in the region beginning in the late 1990s. Episodes of homophobia and violence followed, and in 2006 nine people were shot and wounded in a melee. The party has since been canceled or curtailed.
In this context the incidents at Lime have become a flash point. Yet change in the Castro seems inevitable. In an age when homosexuals are receiving greater acceptance, fewer feel compelled to live in ghettos as they once did, and that means a more substantial mix of residents is likely, as well as services that meet their needs.
In fact, some establishments have opened in the area and attracted both gay and straight patronage without the drama surrounding Lime. Two blocks down Market, the bar Blackbird is flourishing with just such a mix.
Mr. Dufty hailed Blackbird’s success as a positive example of the neighborhood’s evolution. But he also said that the district’s legacy should not be forgotten and that its gay centricity needed to be maintained.
“You can’t take the Castro for granted. It’s worth fighting for,” he said. “We seek to be inclusive, but it’s essential that we remain anchored in our LGBT heritage.”
J. D. Petras, a businessman with several properties in the Castro, including Cafe Flore, a popular outdoor restaurant, has watched the Castro develop for more than 30 years.
“I’d love to see the Castro be a gay ghetto like it was in the 1970s,” he said, “but we don’t need it anymore. Gay people are everywhere.”
Despite some of the problems that others have reported, Mr. Petras said he welcomed the crowds flocking to Lime. He said the club’s patrons were helping to revive the depressed local economy.
“It’s fun for young kids coming into the big city,” he said. “It’s good for our neighborhood. Who the hell cares if it’s gay, mixed or straight?”
Now, if only they could be potty trained, then perhaps the rest of the neighbors would feel as accommodating.
“I don’t want it to be spring break each weekend,” Mr. Dufty said.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Congress Considers West Coast Oil Drilling
By Susanne Rust, California Watch
05.04.11
Nearly a year after a BP oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico and created one of the largest environmental catastrophes of all time, federal lawmakers are considering encouraging drilling off the West Coast, including the rich oil beds off Southern California.
Lawmakers say allowing the drilling would ease the burden of high oil prices and provide an alternative to foreign oil.
Supporters, including the Energy Nation, an oil industry advocacy group, say the bills will produce more domestic oil and gas, create jobs, provide revenue for the government and secure the country's energy future.
Critics say the bills (HR 1229, HR 1230 and HR 1231) set the stage for environmental disaster and will have little or no effect on oil prices.
“Not only will the bills expand drilling, they would leave oversight of offshore drilling weaker than it was before last year’s oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico,” said Bob Keefe, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Richard Charter, senior policy adviser for Defenders of Wildlife, said the bills would have no effect on the "price at the pump."
"That's decided by oil speculators who run up oil prices till the price skyrockets," he said.
He referred to a study conducted by the federal government's Energy Information Administration, which showed that new drilling off the country's coasts would only reduce gas prices by a few cents.
The bills passed the House Committee on Natural Resources in April, and two of the three bills are scheduled for a vote on Thursday. The third bill, which some call the most sweeping, will likely go to the floor next week, Charter said.
That third bill, HR 1231, or “Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act,” would require the federal government to lease at least 50 percent of available unleased acreage off the West Coast, Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico and much of the East Coast, every five years.
"It's the 'Law of Eventually Drilling Everything,'" Charter said.
Under existing law, the government decides which areas to lease. This new law would effectively double the current level of offshore drilling.
And states, such as California, would have no say in the matter.
“Earlier versions of bills like this generally allowed a state to veto projects,” said Regan Nelson of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
“Californians have consistently made it clear that they oppose new offshore drilling off their coast," she said.
“This bill is so out of sync of what people want. They’re willing to put oil production over all other considerations.”
Supporters of the bills say the need for more domestic oil is urgent.
"Gas prices in California’s Central Valley have skyrocketed to above $4 a gallon and remained above the national average for weeks," said Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., one of the three local congressmen who voted for the bills.
"We can no longer afford to rely on energy supplies from unstable foreign sources. The time for inaction is over. We must expand domestic energy production to get Americans back to work, bring relief at the pump and create jobs,” he said.
Along with Denham, Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., and Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., supported the bills.
Rep. Grace Napolitano, D-Calif., voted against the bills and Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., voted against one of the bills and was absent for the other two.
Costa was just one of two Democrats to support the bills. He did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
05.04.11
Nearly a year after a BP oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico and created one of the largest environmental catastrophes of all time, federal lawmakers are considering encouraging drilling off the West Coast, including the rich oil beds off Southern California.
Lawmakers say allowing the drilling would ease the burden of high oil prices and provide an alternative to foreign oil.
Supporters, including the Energy Nation, an oil industry advocacy group, say the bills will produce more domestic oil and gas, create jobs, provide revenue for the government and secure the country's energy future.
Critics say the bills (HR 1229, HR 1230 and HR 1231) set the stage for environmental disaster and will have little or no effect on oil prices.
“Not only will the bills expand drilling, they would leave oversight of offshore drilling weaker than it was before last year’s oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico,” said Bob Keefe, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Richard Charter, senior policy adviser for Defenders of Wildlife, said the bills would have no effect on the "price at the pump."
"That's decided by oil speculators who run up oil prices till the price skyrockets," he said.
He referred to a study conducted by the federal government's Energy Information Administration, which showed that new drilling off the country's coasts would only reduce gas prices by a few cents.
The bills passed the House Committee on Natural Resources in April, and two of the three bills are scheduled for a vote on Thursday. The third bill, which some call the most sweeping, will likely go to the floor next week, Charter said.
That third bill, HR 1231, or “Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act,” would require the federal government to lease at least 50 percent of available unleased acreage off the West Coast, Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico and much of the East Coast, every five years.
"It's the 'Law of Eventually Drilling Everything,'" Charter said.
Under existing law, the government decides which areas to lease. This new law would effectively double the current level of offshore drilling.
And states, such as California, would have no say in the matter.
“Earlier versions of bills like this generally allowed a state to veto projects,” said Regan Nelson of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
“Californians have consistently made it clear that they oppose new offshore drilling off their coast," she said.
“This bill is so out of sync of what people want. They’re willing to put oil production over all other considerations.”
Supporters of the bills say the need for more domestic oil is urgent.
"Gas prices in California’s Central Valley have skyrocketed to above $4 a gallon and remained above the national average for weeks," said Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., one of the three local congressmen who voted for the bills.
"We can no longer afford to rely on energy supplies from unstable foreign sources. The time for inaction is over. We must expand domestic energy production to get Americans back to work, bring relief at the pump and create jobs,” he said.
Along with Denham, Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., and Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., supported the bills.
Rep. Grace Napolitano, D-Calif., voted against the bills and Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., voted against one of the bills and was absent for the other two.
Costa was just one of two Democrats to support the bills. He did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Web Tracking Bill Draws Fire from Facebook, Google
Tech group says California bill like ‘Texas stopping the oil industry’
By John Letzing, MarketWatch.com
05.03.11
The so-called Do Not Track Internet privacy legislation introduced by California State Senator Alan Lowenthal would require Internet companies to give users a way to comprehensively opt out of having information, such as their name or location, collected online. Companies that fail to comply could face civil legal action, according to the bill.
Large Internet firms have generally bristled at the notion of regulating their collection of user data, which helps target online advertising. Companies argue that policing their own, collective privacy policies makes more sense than passing legislation. An Internet privacy bill proposed recently at the federal level does not include a specific Do Not Track provision.
California’s State Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Tuesday to move Lowenthal’s Do Not Track bill forward to the Appropriations Committee. Lowenthal said during the committee hearing that his legislation “is consistent with California’s long history of championing privacy issues.”
\
However, Fred Main, a representative of TechNet, a policy group representing technology companies, countered during the hearing that by stifling the Internet firms that spur much of the economic growth in the state, the bill would be “the equivalent of Texas stopping the oil industry.”
Facebook, Google and other Internet firms have lobbied California lawmakers this year on Sen. Lowenthal’s proposed Do Not Track legislation, according to public filings.
In a letter sent last week to Sen. Lowenthal, Facebook, Google , Yahoo Inc. and a number of other firms wrote that his proposed legislation would create unnecessary confusion and would add significant new costs for cash-strapped regulators.
“The measure would negatively affect consumers who have come to expect rich content and free services through the Internet, and would make them more vulnerable to security threats,” the companies wrote in the letter, reviewed by MarketWatch.
“It would prove costly to the state and cumbersome for the Attorney General to figure out how to regulate under the bill and to enforce the law,” the letter said.
Representatives from Facebook and Google declined to comment.
Others signing the letter to Sen. Lowenthal included TechNet, which counts Facebook, Google, Microsoft Corp. , Apple Inc. and many other firms as members.
They were joined by other organizations and firms including the Motion Picture Association of America, the California Retailers Association and insurer Allstate Corp.
In the letter, the firms argue that the Network Advertising Initiative, a self-policing organization for the online advertising industry, already provides “easy-to-use mechanisms to opt out of interest-based advertising from more than 60 companies.”
In the letter, the firms argue that the Network Advertising Initiative, a self-policing organization for the online advertising industry, already provides “easy-to-use mechanisms to opt out of interest-based advertising from more than 60 companies.”
Google unveiled a tool for its Chrome Internet browser earlier this year that enables users to opt out of tracking, while Microsoft has added similar technology to its Internet Explorer browser.
During the State Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Lowenthal acknowledged the new privacy tools offered by individual firms, but added that “the mechanism is often not simple, or user-friendly.”
Jeff Chester, a privacy advocate and executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, said that strong
Do Not Track legislation has made little progress in Washington, D.C. — making a focus on state bills necessary.
“The online ad lobby has convinced Washington that Do Not Track will kill off the Internet economy,” Chester said. “We think there’s a real role now for states to come in, and regulate the profiling going on within their borders.”
Chester said that if California does not ultimately pass Sen. Lowenthal’s Do Not Track bill, he and others may push for a related ballot initiative in the state.
Sen. Lowenthal’s bill is sponsored by Consumer Watchdog, a non-profit group that has been funded to publicly challenge Google’s privacy policies and government lobbying.
In their letter to Sen. Lowenthal opposing his legislation, Google and others say that the Internet sector employs roughly 162,000 people in California, and is “the fastest growing source of jobs in the state.”
The Do Not Track Bill “would create a second, conflicting set of standards to which companies would have to conform or else face class-action lawsuits,” the companies argue. “This would, in turn, create significant confusion and uncertainty for investors, businesses and consumers.”
Chester said it’s natural that Internet firms, which rely on serving relevant advertising to a growing number of users, would challenge Sen. Lowenthal’s Do Not Track bill, as “they have the most to lose.”
Monday, May 2, 2011
Week 15: Monterey
Fisherman's Wharf |
The people came and listened
Some of them came and played
Others gave flowers away
Yes they did
Down in Monterey
Down in Monterey
Some of them came and played
Others gave flowers away
Yes they did
Down in Monterey
Down in Monterey
—The Animals, "Monterey"
Week 15: Monterey
Mo 5.2 / Tu 5.3
Read: CALU—Excerpt from Holy Land by D.J.Waldie, “Pruning Generations” by David Mas Masumoto, Excerpt from Travels with Charley by John Steinbeck, “The Light Takes Its Color from the Sea” by James D. Houston, “My Ride, My Revolution” by Luis J. Rodriguez, “Where the Poppies Grow” by Richard Rodriguez
In-Class: Reading discussion; Presentations
Due: Editorial essay (Final draft, attach draft 1 and, on a separate sheet, one paragraph rationale for your revisions)
We 5.4 / Th 5.5
In-Class: Autobiographical essay (Bring both California Uncovered and My California)
Upcoming:
Week 16: Folsom
Mo 5.9 / Tu 5.10
In-Class: Final exam prep; Presentations
We 5.11 / Th 5.12
In-Class: Final exam prep; Presentations
Due: Reflection 8
Sa 5.14
Final exam: 8 AM, location TBD
Note: My Monday office hour is moved to Tuesday until May 9th.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)