You go, girl: Another stellar article by the Bay Area's hippest observer ["You, Too, Can Be in Movies!," by Silke Tudor, July 16]. I just love how you juxtaposed me with the Paramount (class vs. crass). I feel so proud! Nice choice of photo, too (and good timing, since the big turtle returned the next night).
It's also about time someone noticed that this whole alternative filmgoing scene is thriving, and the hub is right here. I think it might kind of dovetail with the resurgence of interest in burlesque, another retro revival that flies in the face of the multiplex mentality. I knew all this was going on, but to see it all covered in one big article really drives it home -- you're ahead of the curve, baby.
Will the Thrill
Via the Internet
The Unbearable Lightness of Natalise
So, um, does the gorgeous little gumdrop have any chops?: I was amazed that in five pages of writing about the up-and-coming pop phenomenon Natalise, Ben Westhoff did not once mention the singer's voice or actual musical talent ["Of Love and Natalise," July 9]. Apparently the author went to great lengths to research his subject, but the only descriptors we get are about her flat stomach and toned body, her cute little crooked front tooth, and the golden highlights in her brown hair.
The point about Natalise potentially becoming the first Asian-American pop star was well made, as was the disparity between her Stanford education and her fluffy lyrics. But come on: Couldn't you have at least pretended that talent matters? Would a male singer have received the same treatment? Think of the message this article sends and the stereotypes it supports. I would expect more from a progressive publication in San Francisco!
Heidi Lang
Oakland
More in-law units would benefit the old and disabled: I thoroughly enjoyed Matt Smith's column about Supervisor Peskin's secondary-units bill ["In-laws You Can Live With," July 9]. My first apartment in San Francisco was a little jewel of an in-law that I didn't realize was "illegal" until the cable man pointed out that a "legal" apartment would have its own unit number. I lost it in an owner move-in eviction, but I've been pro-legalization ever since.
One advantage of in-laws is that they are usually on the ground floor, hence they are good for persons with limited mobility (elderly or disabled). I believe many homeowners who would want to add legal in-law units will want to do so to help out elderly or disabled relatives.
Victoria Tedder
Via the Internet
The parking argument against in-laws is a red herring: Thanks for Smith's column promoting the proposed law to allow up-to-code in-law apartments. I also support this proposal for most of the reasons he put forward. Please accept that what follows is not intended as criticism, but just as a constructive contribution to the issue. I'll continue reading Smith's column and recommend it to others. (Got that, bosses? Continue the guy's column and raise his salary.)
However, I think it is less likely to succeed unless we deal directly with the arguments the anti-infill folks will use:
1) The most important problem is parking. By some definition, everyplace in S.F. is "within 1,200 feet of a transit corridor." Muni lines are set up to prevent anyplace from being more than two or three blocks from a Muni stop (frankly, Muni could probably run more frequently and therefore take more drivers out of their cars if this standard was lowered a bit, but that's another letter). Unless "transit corridor" is defined to include only stops with a minimum frequency of every five minutes (lines 14, 22, 30, 38 ...), the exception will consume the rule.
In North Beach and the Mission, parking is a nightmare. There are in fact still some landlords and homeowners who have not yet eliminated their garages because they can't legally. Parking in these areas will descend one circle of hell.
Unfortunately, since we are dysfunctional San Franciscans, we'll probably end up instead legislating "parking-impacted zones" in which infill in-law units will not be legally permitted. This will do two things: a) create employment for lawyers before the Planning Commission, trying to get exceptions (the Bar Association thanks you); and b) prevent permitting in areas which are most transit-oriented already (i.e., they're parking-impacted). The Mission and North Beach will end up without any units being made safer. The Avenues will grow nicely, except perhaps in places where it's easy to catch Muni.
I think S.F. Tomorrow or other such groups should whip up a quick report to define what would likely work -- perhaps Matt Smith could dig up some data on what works from his corporate masters' files in other cities (ya gotta get some benefits from working at a franchise :-)).
2) The straw man: property value. This argument is so bogus it hardly merits attack. Clearly this proposal would raise property values, like any zoning that allows more development. What people are really against is the destruction of beautiful old homes to put up Developer's Specials.
David Wright
Downtown
Keep our public pools open!: Smith's article on the phasing out of public pools by the mayor and the Board of Supervisors does a disservice to those individuals who are fighting to keep them open against a rising tide of budget cutbacks ["Playing Pool," July 2]. Most of the working people Smith describes as "PANS" are parents and teachers, who happen to swim. They are in favor of everyone -- especially children -- having the fullest possible access to public pools.
As one of the non-goggle lap swimmers, I work as a children's librarian. At work, I am reminded daily that another big attack on children's services is the SFUSD's cancellation of summer school this year. Record numbers of kids are sent to the library in lieu of summer school. They read some of the time, play computer games and e-mail most of the time, and exercise none of the time. Pool closures shut off access to perhaps one of the most fun, healthy, and least injurious forms of exercise for kids.
In Cuba, where there has been a socialist revolution, swimming pools are plentiful and free -- unlike here where there are few, and they charge a fee. Nobody is likely to shut them down in Cuba, unless the United States government launches a military attack on sites of mass recreation and re-privatizes them. I say "re-privatizes" because many of the free Cuban pools were, prior to the revolution, run by the U.S. hotel syndicates.
Working people use the pool early in the morning beginning at 6:30. Some swim there because they can't afford athletic-club fees. The public pools are larger, with wider lap lanes; they're cleaner, absent the sour chlorine smell from degraded chemicals that you find in the profit-immersed, but dirtier private pools. At 8 a.m. during the school year, kids from Bob Gamino's class at John O'Connell Vocational High School swim. At 9:30, disabled people, seniors with arthritis, and pregnant women swim. There are times for babies and toddlers and one additional lap swim for adults in the evening.
Closer scrutiny than Smith's reveals that a Mexican immigrant mother and daughter, just learning English, who have never swum in public before are becoming "regulars." A woman with a permanently disabled leg and a man whose leg was shattered in an accident use the poolside crane to lower themselves into the water, and avail themselves of free, voluntarily-given therapy from the pool manager. There are numerous pregnant women, whose progress we follow as any neighbors would. There are artists who work part time as crafts teachers at nursery schools, critical-care nurses, injured dancers and athletes who do non-weight-bearing exercise. Racially and nationally, we are as diverse as the larger population of San Francisco. We are lifelong swimmers: babies, kids, high-schoolers, young adults and older adults.
I invite your readers to spend a morning at Garfield Pool. Get to know the lifeguards, whose union, by the way, is the only organization standing between the city budget slashers and paying the bills. Lately, the lifeguards have taken to bringing their boomboxes and inviting swimmers to bring music tapes. Some days there's classical and Latin; other days, soul and country. There's political literature posted against the budget cuts. The "PANS" are fighting for your children, not against them.
Will they win? We'll see if the one of the richest cities in one of the richest countries in the world can keep nine public pools open. However it washes, I'd be very surprised if the "PANS" and their supporters don't make some major waves in an all-out effort to keep the pools afloat.
Toba Singer
Potrero Hill
Pools should be reserved for real users: I can assure you that contrary to anything the city Recreation and Park Department may claim, it's never held a "series" of public meetings on pool hours, and adult lap swimmers have certainly never packed any of the (often) last-minute meetings Rec and Park has organized on the topic of city pools.
San Francisco Tsunami, an adult masters swimming program (primarily gay and lesbian, but welcoming to all), did pack one of those meetings in order to preserve our eight-hour-per-week schedule at Hamilton Pool. Our hours seem to be in constant threat of cutbacks, despite having probably stronger attendance than any other program at Hamilton Pool. (Ours is also the only programming time on the city aquatic schedules for a primarily gay and lesbian audience, so, yeah, I guess we might just be politically active neighborhood swimmers.) Our eight hours are divided into 1.5-hour blocks, and we squeeze our 150-plus members into the lanes for that limited time. Saturdays we often have as many as nine or 10 people per lane.
I have to say that I'm constantly amazed at how adult lap swimming in San Francisco pools is treated as a virtual holy grail by Rec and Park, though the lap swimmers certainly don't turn up in any considerable strength at any Rec and Park meeting I've been to. I'd also point out that I've noticed many phantoms on the schedules -- swim teams that have practice time set aside but who don't show up, significantly more time set aside for teams with far fewer members (than Tsunami), time set aside for public schools that doesn't seem to be utilized, etc.
What would be a great help in this mess would be a review of all the city pools' utilizations and then to have schedules set accordingly.
Christopher Hall
Co-President
San Francisco Tsunami Swim Team
San Francisco
Absentee voting: Matt Smith reminds me of the outnumbered citizen at a recent Board of Supervisors meeting who pleaded, "Please, listen to all the people who aren't here tonight."
Smith remains the champion of apathy and the Silent (invisible) Majority. If he thinks it's so easy to "pack" meetings with "rabid micro-interest groups," let him try it.
It requires Herculean efforts, not rabies, to make a dent in the Recreation Department or the Board of Supervisors. When parents don't advocate for their children, they have themselves to blame.
Steve Cockrell
Coordinator
San Francisco Parks Coalition
San Francisco
For our favorite pretty boy: Gavin Newsom's hair isn't "swept back," it's "larded back" ["Picketing a Heartthrob," Dog Bites, July 9]. How much lard does he use to do that? You really think that's sexy? Lard on hair? Ewwwwwww.
Mark Barnes
Nob Hill
