Pretty Isn’t the Point

Two consecutive weekends with sun drenched days of outdoor frolicking.

First up, last weekend was the Howeird Street Fair, followed by us crashing a superhero themed benefit at Truck, which somehow ended up in the BAR. My Fucked Up Fairy outfit was almost scant enough to keep me cool. Almost.

Last weekend Crazy D gets credit for planning a lovely day in the park in a sorta secluded spot. I stupidly believed the weatherperson’s prediction of fog and coldness. Suffice to say I wasn’t prepared for the blistering warmth and so brought no shorts, and was only wearing a jock under my jeans.

But at least it matched my tube socks. Pictures here.

Howeird Is That?

I had it all planned out, and had a motivating (or not, it turns out) phrase for this year. My plan was to be ‘fit by Folsom’. The social season started last weekend, and we are so far off track.

I can, however, fit into my five year old neice’s play-ballerina tutu with only minimal discomfort. So that served as the basis of my outfit to the Howard Street Fair (wings, silver gloves, purple metallic stripper shorts, and waaaay too much purple glitter), aka Howeird Street Fair, which isn’t gay, and mostly aimed for over-artsy faux-frat boys and people suffering from Burning Man withdrawal.

Falling further off concept was Darran Dark. I assembled for him, last minute, a very passable witchdoctor outfit, which I could, due to my white skin, in no way pull off myself. Concept was awesome. In execution, it left a little bit to be desired. Because of his mostly-muscle bulk, the sarong bunched up around his hips like an adult diaper, and after ten minutes in the unheard-of heat, his skull mask makeup was a mess. He looked like a bee stung, incontinent Samoan, but it was all good. David, as you can tell from the photo, looked like a tranny hammock, in a very stylish way.

More together were the superhero outfits at Truck’s theme party benefit for some homo-vigilante Castro community street patrol group. I’ll drink to that, why not. Lots of gym’ed bodies in their demure Batman Underoos t-shirts. I felt hot, in a sweaty, draining way, for the chaps who went whole hog in head-to-toe Spiderman, Batman, and Aquaman outfits. God bless you for participating, and hats off to your hard work at the gym.

Hole is OK?

apparently so. . .

HOLE IN THE WALL
CRISIS OVER

 

Owners of the Hole in the Wall finally accepted a solution proposed by the neighbors several weeks ago, thus removing nearly all of the obstacles to the relocation of the bar to 1369 Folsom Street. A second protest, filed by Jackie Bryson, is not affected by the agreement.

The neighbors who support Damian Ochoa’s request for Discretionary Review proposed the compromise on Monday, April 9. Jeremy Paul, representing the Hole in the Wall, accepted the conditions on April 11 and Damian, Jeremy and Jim Meko shook hands on the deal. Jeremy Paul also offered to obtain an apology from the owners, something he was subsequently unable to produce but an apology was never part of the deal.

There has been some confusion since then (including statements from the owners of the bar denying the existence of a compromise) but plans submitted by the bar last Friday explicitly accept the first five conditions. The sixth, a request for the imposition of a good neighbor policy, is at the discretion of the Planning Commission.

A comparison between the neighbors’ proposed compromise
and the revised plans submitted by the Hole in the Wall:

1. Applicants shall construct a smoking room inside the bar that is properly ventilated so that no smoke enters the neighboring homes and the rear of the bar shall be adequately sound-proofed so that no noise from inside the bar is audible in any of the surrounding residences.

The new plans add a smoking room in the bar and move the office and restrooms into a horizontal extension at the rear as an additional sound buffer. The smoking room is to be ventilated four feet above the roof line.

2. The backyard shall be off-limits to patrons.

The plans read, “REAR YARD ACCESS CONTROLLED: RESIDENTS AND EMPLOYEES ONLY. NO PATRON ACCESS TO REAR YARD.” Also, there is no rear exit from the bar proper to the yard.

3. in accordance with Planning Code Section 816.37, nighttime entertainment (as defined in section 102.17), which includes the prohibition of DJs and live bands, is not allowed on the premises.

This statement reflects the existing code. The plans state, “AS PER PLANNING CODE SECTION 816.37 NIGHT TIME ENTERTAINMENT NOT PERMITTED ON PREMESIS.”

4. Applicants shall employ Charles Salter & Associates to advise them on sound attenuation throughout the bar.

Title page states, “SOUND ATTENUATION/MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS AS PER C.M. SALTER TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY CONTRACTOR.”

5. Applicants shall surrender their curb cut and establish a motorcycle parking zone in front of the bar.

The plan states “CURB CUT TO BE REMOVED IN ANTICIPATION OF (N) MOTORCYCLE PARKING TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY OWNER & DPW/DPT.”

6. The Good Neighbor Policies of the Entertainment Commission shall be added as conditions of approval for this change of use.

This is not addressed on the engineering drawings but a Good Neighbor Policy will certainly be imposed by the Planning Commission.

If these six stipulations are adopted as conditions of approval, the objections contained in Damian Ochoa’s DR request will be considered resolved.

Anyone Know?

I have on my little Google calendar that what I affectionately call the ‘Hippy House’ at 455 14th Street is having another fete this Saturday night.  They don’t do a great job, at least on the web, of promoting the event.  Anyone know if the gig is still on?

If so, see you there.

SFPD Officers Get Away With It

I frequently get somewhat envious comments from far flung friends about how cool/hip/liberal San Francisco is.

Sure. To a degree. As I told Boy recently, I’ll never willingly live elsewhere in the States. 99% of the rest of our great nation is still just too damn repressed, boring, or downright hostile to homos.

San Francisco still has a way to go, though, especially, apparently, in the SF police department. Feast your indignation on the following excerpt from a SFGate.com article . . .
San Francisco police officers — accused in a lawsuit of forcing a gay man they caught urinating in the street to kneel down and use his hair to mop up after himself — will not face the prospect of discipline because the department missed a deadline to act after the man sued the city in 2005.

Members of the Police Commission approved an $83,000 tentative settlement of the man’s civil rights suit without comment on Wednesday. But afterward, some commissioners expressed frustration that no one in the Police Department acted in time before the one-year statute of limitations on disciplinary action expired.

“You are talking about a hate crime — it’s just a tragedy that the department is unable to do anything about it because it dropped the ball so early on,” said Commissioner Joe Veronese, who promised to make sure the department acted to preserve such cases in the future.

According to the suit, Andrew Marconi of Sacramento was confronted by three officers at 2:15 a.m. on March 7, 2004, as he urinated outside theEndup, a nightclub near the Hall of Justice.

Marconi said he was accosted by the officers, including Sgt. Jason Fox and Officer Simon Chan — neither of whom could be reached for comment — who he claimed used anti-homosexual slurs against him.

“You peeing on my streets? Do you think we want your AIDS-infected pee on our streets?” Fox allegedly asked.

Marconi claimed he was forced to kneel down into his urine as the officers continued to verbally abuse him, shining a flashlight in his eyes. Then, Marconi contended, Fox slammed his head into a wall and used his hair to clean up the urine on the wall.

The officers then stripped off Marconi’s shirt and used it to mop up the remaining waste, also threatening Marconi with more violence should he ever be caught urinating again, according to the lawsuit.

It claimed the abuse only stopped when Marconi’s friend walked up and showed his Stockton Police Department badge to the officers, who got in their patrol car and drove off.

In another context, the above would be a very hot scene. In fact, I think I have a video of a very similar scenario in my home entertainment collection. However, kidding aside, the whole situation, from the first encounter to the method in which theSFPD, purposefully or just through inept bungling, is disgusting.

The full article continues here.

Jim Meko Chimes In

and he’s none too happy.

Regarding the article in the Bay Times I wrote about last entry, Jim and I struck up an email exchange (which he titled ‘oh god, the attacks begin’), which follows below:

Jim,
I’m reading in the local press about your apparent attempts to refuse the Hole in the Wall permission to relocate to a safer (structurally speaking) building. I wanted to hear your side of the story before I blog about my thoughts on the slow but steady snuffing of social spaces for gay men in SoMa.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Best,
Benjamin

_____________________

Benjamin,

I have been talking with Jeremy Paul, who represents the Hole, for quite a while and about two weeks ago we arrived at a compromise that I was hoping the neighbors would accept. But then the folks from the Hole started spreading all this crap against me. I didn’t write the DR, didn’t organize the neighbors, haven’t talked to the Planning Department and am certainly not out to close the Hole (or the Eagle). I’m not the enemy of fun that they make me out to be. I do hold a seat on the Entertainment Commission, one that has been set aside to represent the interests of the neighbors. Now that this article has come out, with all these lies, I’m not so sure how interested in compromise these particular neighbors will be.

I don’t know this guy at the Bay Times and he didn’t even bother to contact me. If he had, this is what I would have told him:

<< I think both the Hole and the Eagle are great bars and I hope they go on forever. One of the things that makes them so much fun is the outlaw factor. Joe Banks and John Gardiner operate right at the edge of what’s legal and acceptable but they’ve been established in this community for so long that I’d fight to defend their right to continue that tradition. My complaint is that they didn’t give any thought to this new neighborhood they decided to move into. Huge difference. Nearly a hundred neighbors in close proximity. 98 units of affordable housing at Folsom/Dore. 140 units of SRO supportive housing with drug rehab programs going in directly across the street. Joe and John got bad advice about that location. I wrote a letter to their real estate agent last July outlining the challenges they would face but they decided to bully their way through all of this. It’s turned into a nasty and divisive fight and I deeply regret it. >>

 

Thanks,

Jim Meko

 

____________________________________________________

Jim,

Thanks Jim. Awesome to hear your side of the story.
I too enjoy the Hole in the Wall and the Eagle, tho I’m by no means a regular. They seem well run and draw a good crowd. I was not aware that the owners engaged in actions of questionable legality (SF gays seem to do an OK job of policing their pubs and owners a la Les Natali of Badlands infamy).

The proposed new location of the Hole is next door to the Powerhouse, correct? Have the neighbors had problems with that bar that you predict will intensify if the Hole is allowed to relocate?

At any rate, I’m eager to present a more balanced view of this situation and thank you again for your input!

Cheers,
Benjamin

________

Benjamin,

The proposed location is a couple doors west of the Powerhouse. Scott and the staff at the Powerhouse have always maintained a live and let live relationship with the neighbors, and a bar has been at that location for nearly forty years. The stairs and store rooms are alongside the neighboring residence and the residence’s stairs also provide more of a buffer. It’s also on a corner and that mitigates more issues with bikes out front etc.

The neighbors around the proposed location for the Hole are mostly concerned about the back yard. All these homes on Folsom, Tenth and Dore have rear yards … it’s a nice oasis from the crummy traffic out front. The main compromise would be to build a smoking room at the rear, without any access into the back yard. The yard would be left only for the residences above the bar. Soundproof the room, ventilate it above the roof line so the neighbors wouldn’t have to live with cigar smoke coming into their bedroom windows … and out front, we’d ask that they surrender their curb cut (driveway) and turn it into motorcycle parking.

Their rep accepted the deal. I’d like to think most of the neighbors would buy into this too, but I’m so pissed right now, we’ll have to see.

jim

That’s My Mayor

We interrupt our investigation of the challenges facing the Hole in the Wall to bring you this photo of our mayor apparently felating a microphone.

The Drudge Report picked up the story from local blogger Beth Spotswood, who gushingly apologizes for the unflattering press her little expose has garnered our beleaguered  leader.

Jim Meko vs. The Miracle Mile

I’m being driven around San Francisco by a man who knows his way around the city, and has for a long time.

“That used to be a bath house,” he says, pointing to a closed, derelict building on lower Oak Street. “I had some great times there.”

The topic turns, as it often does, to San Francisco then versus San Francisco now. It is never a particularly cheering conversation and as he reels off the names of bars and gay gathering places now long closed, all along what was once called ‘The Miracle Mile’, I feel bummed at the almost inconcievable social space downsizing that has happened in the last twenty years.

Sadly, one city commisioner appears to want to continue the process. Jim Meko seems like an odd bird. He’s lived in SOMA since the late 1970s and, like my kind chaffeur friend, has seen the before-and-after in that area. The odd part is that he is, according to a recent article, doing everything he can to further the downward spiral of SOMA by preventing the legendary Hole in the Wall from relocating to a new, structurally safer space.

As noted in a recent article in the SF Bay Bay Times, “His influence doesn’t simply stop with SoMa. He has tried to curtail similar businesses in several San Francisco neighborhoods from North Beach to the Castro, and has actively battled with the organizers of The Hairrison Street Fair, the newest annual SoMa-based event drawing a large international Bear subculture to the area.”

The article is interesting but sounds very one-sided. After reading it, I contacted Jim Meko to get his side of the story.He promptly replied, the contents of which I’ll share tomorrow.

Mark Morford Must Hate Me

Which is sad, because I’ve long given some thought to politely going down on him (or having my boy do it, since he gives much, much, much better head than i do) just to show gratitude to Mr.Morford for being a right-on, SF-gettin, liberal hot straight writer man. It doesn’t hurt that his avatar photo thingy pasted at the end of each of his articles is freakin’ adorable.
Except now, I think he might loathe me, all for this simple reason: I get my music at Starbucks.

Well. Actually, I get my music from the boy, who got it from Starbucks. And just today Mark Morford railed, in his cute, cutting, incisive way, about just that: Starbucks selling music. Mediocre music, at best, claims Morford.

But unless I’m very much mistaken, (entirely possible given the amount of medical spacecake I’ve been horking down lately), boy brought home the likes of Lily Allen and Mika from Starbucks (note: he did not buy the music from Starbucks, he just heard/saw it promoted there, and returned home to suckle Steve Jobs’ corporate cock by buying it offiTunes).

I think I need a blow job.

San Francisco Back in the Battle

When my best friend decided to go to law school, I had visions of her pouring over papers, buried in legalese, fighting the good fight and sticking it to the Man in court at every opportunity.

Today, instead, she’s doing contract temp work for soul-toxic corporations and watching the clock like a well-paid hawk.

Happily, the city o’ San Francisco is championing good causes. For your purient reading pleasure, I bring you a respectfully filched intro to the brief filed by San Francisco in challenging the state of California’s ban on same sex marriage rights.

CITY ATTORNEY DENNIS HERRERA
NEWS RELEASE
[MORE]
Herrera Files Opening Brief in California
Supreme Court on Marriage Equality
Brief Details ‘Long and Shameful History of State-Sponsored
Persecution’ in Seeking to Invalidate Discriminatory Marriage Laws

SAN FRANCISCO (April 2, 2007)—City Attorney Dennis Herrera filed with the California Supreme Court today the opening brief in his office’s constitutional challenge to discriminatory state marriage laws, detailing what he described as “a long and shameful history of state-sponsored persecution of homosexuality.” The City is a lead plaintiff alongside couples throughout the state in a coordinated action before the state’s highest court that seeks to invalidate provisions of the California Family Code denying marriage rights to same-sex partners.

“A traditional injustice does not warrant perpetuation simply because it is traditional,” Herrera said. “In making our case against marriage discrimination today, we are asking the California Supreme Court not only to assert the rights of equality and privacy uniquely enshrined in our state Constitution, but to reassert the judiciary’s rightful role in interpreting it—something the appellate court failed to do. Our state’s highest court has a long history of independence, wisdom and justice. And I am confident they will honor that long history in this case.”

The seven-member high court is evaluating three separate issues in the case: whether the marriage exclusion violates the equal protection rights of lesbians and gay men; whether the exclusion violates the right to personal autonomy protected by the privacy clause of the California Constitution; and whether the exclusion violates the fundamental right to marry protected by the California Constitution.

The court granted review on Dec. 20, 2006, following an unusual circumstance in which then-California Attorney General Bill Lockyer—a prevailing party in the Court of Appeal’s ruling upholding marriage discrimination—joined the City and same-sex couples in urging the high court to take the case. On Oct. 5, 2006, an appellate court panel issued a 2-to-1 majority opinion holding that, “Everyone has a fundamental right to ‘marriage,’ but, because of how this institution has been defined, this means only that everyone has a fundamental right to enter a public union with an opposite-sex partner.”

The Court of Appeal’s ruling overturned a previous decision by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard A. Kramer on March 14, 2005 that found legal provisions excluding same-sex couples from marriage unconstitutional. Kramer—who stayed his ruling pending review from higher courts—ruled that existing state marriage laws unconstitutionally discriminated on the basis of sex, and unconstitutionally impinged on the fundamental right to marry the person of one’s choice.

CITY ATTORNEY DENNIS HERRERA NEWS RELEASE
PAGE 2 OF 2 MONDAY, APRIL 2, 2007

Herrera’s direct constitutional challenge to state marriage laws in City and County of San Francisco vs. State of California was filed on March 11, 2004, within an hour of the California Supreme Court’s order prohibiting San Francisco officials from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples at the direction of Mayor Gavin Newsom. The lawsuit made San Francisco the first government entity in American history to challenge the constitutionality of state marriage laws that discriminate against gay and lesbian couples.

The City’s case was later consolidated with similar suits filed the following day by the National Center for Lesbian Rights on behalf of same-sex couples, Equality California and Our Family Coalition. That consolidated case was then coordinated with other constitutional challenges from Los Angeles and San Francisco before Judge Kramer.

From the outset, Herrera has said his case on behalf of the entire City and County of San Francisco “asserts the long-held principle that discrimination is not merely detrimental to the minority it singles out, but to the majority that would abide it,” arguing that “without full recognition of gay and lesbian families through marriage, San Francisco is limited in its ability to protect the equal rights of its citizens, and harmed in ways tangible and otherwise by an injustice that has no place in 21st Century California.”

 

Notable Quotes
Key highlights from the City’s brief filed with the California Supreme Court today include the following:
• “All of this shows that the State is correct when it contends the marriage exclusion is the product of
tradition. But while we can be proud of many of the traditions we inherited from the western world,
this is not one of them.” (Page 19)
• “Far from retaining the same definition and meaning over the years, [marriage] has evolved
significantly—often at the behest of the judiciary. At every stage, people expressed fears that change
would destroy marriage. But they were wrong. If courts had taken the approach advocated by the
state here—namely, preserve tradition to avoid upsetting people—marriage would no longer be
meaningful.” (Page 19)
• “Further, by denying marriage and relegating lesbian and gay couples to a separately named and
separately administered scheme created just for them, the State segregates them and their families
from the rest of society, continuing to marginalize them. This separation sends a powerful message—
one that reinforces in the public mind the already-entrenched inferior status of lesbians and gay men.
The message is easily understood: the State will recognize, but it will not honor, lesbian and gay
family relationships.” (Page 51)
• “Indeed, the marriage exclusion tells lesbians and gay men that they are less worthy than child
abusers, or sex offenders, or convicts in prison for murder. Because after all, those people do have
the right to get married.” (Page 1-2)
Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese M. Stewart, Chief of Appellate Litigation Danny Chou, and Deputy
City Attorneys Sherri Sokeland Kaiser and Vince Chhabria were lead authors on the brief. The case is In
Re Marriage Cases, Supreme Court of the State of California, Case No. S147999.