[Noisebridge-discuss] Call the Mayor Day - Tuesday February 9th

[Sai Emrys]

a) "A lot of us that live in warehouse spaces are also concerned since
we have the SFPD (or rather certain officers in the SFPD) cracking
down on us too."

How does this have to do with mere *residents* of warehouses, other
than when they merely happen to cooccupy a space with a targeted
public party? In reply to Ian, you cited the thing Granick talked
about[1], but that's not an example of ABC *targeting* residents at
all.

If you happened to be there as a resident, you were collateral damage
from an illegally broad search and seizure. That definitely sucks
badly, and should be taken action against, but it's no basis to imply
that people who live in warehouses in general ought to be concerned.


b) The site you linked to has unsubstantiated claims about what
various events/places were cited for. This would be rather more
convincing if one could see proof thereof. IOW: citation needed.

However: I think that the question of how much food alcohol-serving
establishments should serve, and when, is a completely different (and
rather more banal) one from the EFF-represented issue of scope of
search and seizure. It might be an interesting question, but you've
not given any real information about it, so I don't know. I certainly
don't see why it deserves some big march on government.

What are the rules re. food and hours? (I certainly don't know 'em.)
Why were they passed? Why should they be changed? Why should we care?


I agree that the laptop confiscation thing is extremely fucked up.
However, you dilute your point when you make unsubstantiated claims
and nonsense characterizations of a governmental entity having a "war
on fun". I really doubt they give a shit about "fun" either way;
they're probably (from their perspective) just enforcing some random
zoning laws.

If what you care about is the confiscation thing - awesome, stick to
that. It's a slam dunk that they were in the wrong and it definitely
deserves more exposure, possibly some real reform to prevent police
overstepping their bounds.

If there's another point to make, please make it more cogently. The
case you stated seems to boil down to "ABC did the confiscation thing,
which was really bad, therefore these other things they do are bad".

The most generous reading I can see - possibly what you meant? -  is
that the ABC is only superficially going after legitimate if pissant
violations of zoning ordinances - which you don't particularly care
about per se - and in the process of doing so, they are intentionally
doing other damage like improperly seizing private property, as a
covert method to intentionally harass those businesses for reasons
unstated.[2]

But again, that would call more for a curtailment of the actual abuses
(don't take stuff, just give the bar a ticket), rather than the random
ordinances (as there will always be *something* to enforce). And it
seems unlikely to me just as a psychological matter that ABC officials
would "have it in" for these businesses; IME most such conflicts occur
more out of ignorance or severely differing worldviews (e.g. they
really care about petty ordinances and don't care at all about private
property rights) than actual malice.

Lastly: you don't really state what you want. "To preserve and protect
live music and entertainment in California!" is not a real thing. Do
you want to change the food service laws? Prevent cops from enforcing
ABC regulations? Punish cops for doing illegal search and seizure?
This is totally unclear.


I think that having a more well-supported argument and stating clear,
specific resolution you want that's in the mayor's power to achieve
would increase your chances of success.

Thanks,
- Sai

[1] Incidentally, they got 'em back, go Granick et al -
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/side-djs-win-laptops-back
[2] I hope you're not serious in saying they are doing it 'cause they
hate fun. Reminds me of the joke: "I'm not a vegetarian 'cause I love
animals, I'm a vegetarian 'cause I HATE PLANTS."