It takes a lot to laugh; it takes a Caltrain Extension to cry: As a longtime member of the Transbay Citizens Advisory Committee, I was pleased to see Matt Smith's article on the comings and goings of the Transbay Joint Powers board ["Missed Connection," March 8]. The Transbay Terminal/Caltrain Extension was conceived by San Franciscans, is to be paid for by San Franciscans, and needs to be controlled by San Franciscans. The provocative proposal announced last December to redesign the terminal exclusively for buses and build an 800-foot tower has not been vetted among San Franciscans. (Our CAC only received a presentation last month.) The ramifications of placing the rail extension in limbo need to be widely discussed and perhaps confirmed by the voters of San Francisco. I thus strongly support the letter from the mayor and Supervisor McGoldrick setting up a four-person task force to review the status of Transbay and urge that a public hearing be held on the proposal.
AC [Transit President Greg] Harper and his colleagues are snakes in the grass determined only to get a new bus terminal at San Francisco's expense. When Congresswoman Pelosi attempted to get $150 million included in the federal transportation reauthorization bill for Transbay, she could get no support from her East Bay colleagues since they were being told by AC that Transbay was not their priority. Thus, she barely got $50 million.
James W. Haas
Good intentions, bad directions: This was a good article, except everyone knows the Transbay Terminal is at First and Mission, not Third and Mission. Making an obvious error like that at the beginning of the story tends to undermine the reader's belief that the author knows what he is talking about! In any case, while it would be desirable ultimately to bring rail and bus together, something has to be done about the bus station, even if it ends up being impossible to bring the trains downtown. It is a severe safety hazard and an eyesore in its current condition, and likely deters some folks from riding the bus to the city. To keep congestion under control, we need to facilitate transbay bus service, which means we need a better bus station in S.F.
They're Brummelicious!: I want to thank Mr. Farrar for writing the best article on the Beau Brummels I've ever read ["Oh, Pioneers," March 1]. I totally agree with his statements about the importance of the Brummels to the S.F. sound and to rock music in this country. This band does belong in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. So do the Moody Blues, among others, and I don't see that happening as long as the current bunch is making the nominations. Thanks for a thorough and informative piece.
Beau? Diddly.: I share Mr. Farrar's enthusiasm for lost rock groups. Finding those rare records recorded by rarer groups is an excellent rush, and I never hesitate to trade whatever secrets I might discover with my friends. I'm sure Mr. Farrar would understand completely.
When it comes to the Beau Brummels, however, I must disagree with him. Does he really think they were that good? Does he really find them that influential? In college, I owned their first record. It had been reissued by Sundazed. The whole package was a class act: original album-cover artwork, deluxe liner notes, a handful of bonus tracks, and a suave digital remastering. Unfortunately, the record sucked. I mean, they really did only have two good songs. I suppose a case could be made for their follow-up record, and I know that Bradley's Barn has its defenders, but I think the Beau Brummels have been forgotten largely due to their own mediocrity.
That, and I don't think they had any influence on the development of the mostly boring and entirely predictable "San Francisco sound." Who would want to claim responsibility for that? Those bands were so bad, and their music so unforgivably turgid, that I think they're the ones who inspired Kurt Cobain to write "Territorial Pissings." (And I refuse to make any exceptions for Moby Grape, with or without Skip Spence.)
Anyway, great article, but I definitely disagree with Mr. Farrar's thesis.
Bi-furious: I noticed in the recent article by Cristi Hegranes, "Sloganeering" [News, March 1], that the Bay Area Reporter was described as a newspaper for the "gay, lesbian, and transgender community." I'm not clear on why your reporter chose to omit information about bisexuals in this description of the Bay Area Reporter. In actual fact, bisexuals read and write for the Bay Area Reporter paper, and the paper bills itself as one that has been "serving the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender communities since 1971." This statement is on its masthead. Journalist Liz Highleyman is one of the most regular contributors to the Bay Area Reporter, as well as a leader in the bi community and the LGBT community; she is just one of many bisexual journalists who have written for the Bay Area Reporter. Bisexuals such as myself read every issue of the Bay Area Reporter, and appreciate the contributions that the Bay Area Reporter has made to reporting on bisexual topics and individuals, as well as the commitment of the paper to be inclusive of bisexuals. So, when your newspaper characterizes the Bay Area Reporter by leaving out the bisexual part, you've made a mistake. Bisexuals are an integral part of the Bay Area Reporter's demographic, and accuracy in reporting that fact is appreciated.