And yet, this kind of thing is a regular occurrence in the Panhandle
“Scott Wiener was standing at the urinal and had just started to tinkle as I entered and the camera took 4-6 seconds to focus, enough time for him to put away his wiener and zipper up.”
Of course when I think of the word “peeking,” I’m thinking it’s to:
“Look quickly, typically in a furtive manner.”
Now let’s see how California Penal Code subdivision 647(j) might apply here:
“647. Except as provided in subdivision (l), every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor…
…(j) (1) Any person who looks through a hole or opening, into, or otherwise views, by means of any instrumentality, including, but not limited to, a periscope, telescope, binoculars, camera, motion picture camera, camcorder, or mobile phone, the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of a person or persons inside. This subdivision shall not apply to those areas of a private business used to count currency or other negotiable instruments.”
So, where’s the “injustice” here?
I’m not seeing it.
Les mise-en-scene. (This shot could be used to show how the mirrors on the second-floor bathroom at City Hall were mounted too low, just saying)
“It gives me great pleasure to announce that my legal hassle with an elected official, after he abused the power of his office as a member of the Board of Supervisors to put me through the law enforcement wringer over eight months and waste $26,000 in City dollars, has concluded.”
…is wrong. It’s the kind of thing you’d say after getting acquitted perhaps, but it doesn’t apply to this case, IMO.
And this too…
“Had I taken a photo of an ordinary gay citizen in a public men’s room, and he complained to the legal authorities about it, I seriously doubt the complaint would have resulted in the investigation and prosecution I have faced.”
…is wrong. I mean, this is testable, right? Go do the same thing again to an “ordinary gay citizen in a public men’s room” and you just might have another expensive legal hassle from The Man.
Supervisor Scott Wiener is super-human. That’s why he’s so tall and why he only needs to sleep just three hours* every Earth-day, correct? He came to our planet to fight for the rights of millionaire property owners and members** of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, which is his right to do.
He should be able to do so without having to worry about camera-toting Mike Petrelis whenever nature calls.
Anyway, that’s not necessarily what people are saying online.
It’s just what most people are thinking.
*Or so I’ve been told, something like that. Prove me wrong!
**The members with unpopular restaurants especially. These crybabies want a free market except when they don’t. Someday we’ll get San Diego-style cleanliness letter grades posted in front of restaurants the way Chris Daly wanted. Someday.
Here’s how the “Drop Charge Against Petrelis” Blogspot looks at things:
“Page 5 of the transcript illustrates how the DA’s office frames the taking of a photograph: “The conduct in this case amount to a gross invasion of privacy.” Let’s get real! While Michael’s action can be seen as an annoyance, the innocuous photograph hardly warrants such an overblown mischaracterization.”
But here’s the reality, from the webpage entitled “peaking-at-wieners-wiener-in-city-hall”
“Of all the luck an activist could ask for in terms of an impromptu run-in with an ambitious homosexual politician of the Democratic persuasion. My new camera was ready for use in the second floor men’s room at City Hall on Friday afternoon when I walked in. Scott Wiener was standing at the urinal and had just started to tinkle as I entered and the camera took 4-6 seconds to focus, enough time for him to put away his wiener and zipper up.”
If Michael Petrelis is unapologetic then he’s forcing the DA’s office into a prosecution.
Any money “wasted” on this action is on M. Petrelis and not on SFGov.
Simply, M Petrelis is not being oppressed by SFGov.
So this kind of thing is absurd:
“Needless to say, as an independent blogger who frequently displeases the powerful and politicians with access to law enforcement agencies that create legal hassles for me, I stand in strong solidarity…”
So, let’s see here.
1. The idea of taking a photo of Supervisor Scott Wiener’s weiner in a bathroom was good because…
Because why? I don’t get it.
2. Making a federal case (potentially, eventually), a cause celebre, out of this incident is helpful because…
Because why? I don’t get it.
And you say you “allegedly” attempted to violate Section 647(j)(1) of the California Penal Code because, like, you don’t know what you actually did and why you did it?’
Isn’t that the kind of thing criminals say?
I think so.
Here’s what you should do, you apologize.
1. I’m sorry for what I did. I got carried away over the whole nudity ban thing (or whatever it was) and I did something I shouldn’t have. I won’t do anything like that ever again; and
2. You say it like you mean it, whether you mean it or not.
And if you had done that already, then we wouldn’t be here with you wasting your time and the time and money of other people, like taxpayers ‘n stuff.
I guess I passed through the place early – it looked like a ghost town when I was there.
But the Yelpers, well, they love it.
The entrance at 428 11th:
Les mise-en-scene – reminds me of the spare vehicle lot / junkyard of Veterans Cab Co, which is what this place used to be. Instead of busted Plymouth Gran Furies we now have food trucks:
Open-air communal dining, redolent of the Main Pavilion at Jonestown:
Ah, here are the trees on Division shown in the plans. All this new activity has chased away the under-the-freeway stolen bicycle fences all the way to….
…just across Division Street:
Now, speaking of parking, here’s what you’ll see across the street from the main entrance: “PARKING IS FOR COSTCO SHOPPERS ONLY – Violators Will Be Towed”
So, you’ve been warned.
I don’t know, I’m sure it was a royal PITA to get the SFP up and running. And I know that the gestation period for this new baby was longer than a rhino’s, but of course a lot of that had to do with setting up the handicapped-accessible bathrooms and the pavillion and whatnot.
What I don’t know is how things will shake out for the SFP over the next year or two. This could be a case of a K-selection strategy in an r-selection environment.
M-F: 11 AM to 3 PM and 5 PM to 10 PM
Weekends: 11 AM to 10 PM
People on the street eating chicken and meat
People eating pork with a knife and a fork
I haven’t heard word one about the long-promised lawsuit what was going to overturn SFGov and re-install the old tenant as the operator.
“The civil lawsuit begins March 2012 and will expose the truth about all the many laws that Rec & Park broke in order to bring in an out-of-state chain, with no boating experience to take over this historic boating recreation site.”
Ah, Stow Lake:
Click to expand
Oh, and the early reviews are in. And they’re pretty good, those reviews.
Leave us close this chapter of wealthy, white, real-estate-obsessed, dingbat, millionaire homeowner Preservationists vs. the Boathouse at Stow.
I don’t know, when you have like just one member of the public show up at a meeting hosted by Rec and Park, would you call that a successful joint?
This was the scene for last Thursday night’s big PowerPoint presentation. You had people there from the new tenant and the new tenant’s Marin operation and RPD and etc.
Is this low turnout due to the fact that grand battle has already been won by the new tenant, or is it due to the fact that there was zero publicity for this particular meeting,* or maybe a combination of both reasons?
Click to expand
Anyway, the latest developments at Stow are detailed here by Rachel Gordon.
And oh, the lawsuit against the City from the old tenant should have some activity soon, maybe something is scheduled for Superior Court in March 2012.
And the latest from the absurdly-named Save Stow Lake Coalition has to do with paint with lead in it, which, Gentle Reader, I’m sitting two yards from right now. And, this is true for you too, G.R. You know, ’cause paint with some amount of lead in it is everywhere. Simply everywhere. (If it turns out that this coalition is some long-running anti-NIMBY performance art project, I won’t be surprised…)
Not with a bang, but with a whimper.
Enjoy your upcoming rain-free, vernal paddle-boating season, everybody…
*I don’t know, was this meeting posted on the internet anywhere at all? NTMK.
Here’s the word on the street:
“The Recreation and Park Department and Ortega Family Enterprises are hosting a community meeting to discuss the upcoming renovations of the Stow Lake Boathouse. The work will include creating an indoor seating area so that the building is open to the public for the first time, adding an accessible bathroom, upgrading the building systems as well as upgrading the general condition of the building.
Date: January 26, 2012
Location: Hall of Flowers (County Fair Building)”
But, am I getting punk’d here? ‘Cause I can’t find any evidence of this meeting online.
Now, I can find the Save Stow Lake insanity* webpage, right here.
And, I can find the Official Twitter for Stow Lake Boathouse LLC, right here.
But, to review, I can’t find any evidence of this meeting online.
Oh hey, look, it’s Ortega Family Enterprises’ Armand Ortega hisself, at the last big Boathouse meeting (the last one that I know of, anyway) at the Hall of Flowers.**
Click to expand
*Uh, Ortega Family Enterprises has “boating experience” now, doesn’t it? You might want to change that. And do you want the City and County poking about buildings in your real estate empire looking for paint with lead in it? I’d bet they’d find some. Oh no! And shrillness-wise, you’re giving us a 9. How about giving us a 3 instead? All right, take two, roll film, action.
**Yes, that’s the actual color of the interior of the Hall of Flowers. I call it indescribable green.