By Harry S. Pariser A little over a year ago I wrote in these pages the curious circumstances under which I came to be criminally prosecuted by the San Francisco District Attorney's office, when a Burger King had surreptitiously opened next door to me on Ninth Avenue in the Inner Sunset. The fast food restaurant had kept its arrival a secret. There was no record of the application on the Planning Department's computers until after the appeal period had passed. Current regulations do not require any businesses under 1,000 square feet to apply for a conditional use permit and thus avoid having a public hearing about their business plans. The Burger King backers availed themselves of this loophole by cutting a space out of the building's rear in order to limit the size. The neighborhood banded together and protested, but the Board of Permit Appeals rejected their appeal. Hearings before the Board of Supervisors, called by Tom Ammiano, had no effect as the Board had no jurisdiction in this case. The property owner, right-wing Chinese radio talk show host Julie Lee, capitalized on the occasion to fabricate charges of "racism." (For Mrs. Lee, anyone who stands in her way is a "racist").
When this Burger King opened it regularly received supply deliveries at 4:30 AM (and still does as of November 2005). An 18-wheeler would pull up, open the doors, and frequently set off the burglar alarm. When confronted with complaints with regard to this not especially good neighborly practice, owner Edward Szeto would break out in a slew of obscenities. Other problems included loitering, a noisy fan, a smokestack positioned next to my kitchen window, open vats of coagulated grease, and a blaring intercom system. "One Whopper, two fries" is a mantra I hear if I open my kitchen door. I had a "No Burger King" sign in my window. I changed this to a "Boycott Burger King" sign after Szeto threatened to sue my landlord. Owner Szeto refused to deal with the numerous problems and code violations generated by his establishment. In violation of Planning Department regulations, he kept the doors wide-open, venting Burger King stench into the street (and permeating the entrance to my flat). Several times, I committed the seditious acts of closing the restaurants doors and other times returning Burger King litter to the front of the restaurant. In June of last year, Mr. Szeto took me to Superior Court. He obtained a restraining order which barred me from releasing the catch to the doors and from returning his garbage. This was issued despite the fact, that I had not returned any of his litter for at least six months. I was not barred from entering the restaurant, nor was a mediator appointed (in spite of my request). Unfortunately, Mr. Szeto did not understand my free speech rights. Mr. Szeto kept filing police reports which he embroidered. When he had five absurd "counts," he managed to get the District Attorney's office to indict me on criminal charges. I appeared in court many times without my case being settled one way or the other. Brian Bringardener, the DA assigned to my case, did not appear to have had the time to fully study my case.
The Judge hearing the case asked that Mr. Szeto be called upon to accept mediation even though I had twice unsuccessfully asked Community Boards to set up dispute resolution. (The second time came after he had put his fist through the glass pane of my front door in a fit of anger). Mr. Szeto declined. Several months later, the Judge again asked the DA's office to try again. Again Szeto declined, then he accepted. I waited, but the mediation never materialized: he had changed his mind. No explanation was required from him. The surrealistic upshot of this was that the case was set for trial. The DA's office appeared confused as to which DA was to be actually prosecuting me.
The Friday before the trial, they thought that it might be Christine Pelosi (Nancy's daughter). When Christine arrived in court later that morning, she said it was not her. The Monday on which the actual trial was to begin (September 14), I was called back into court again. By late afternoon, we had reached a reasonable compromise. I would not talk to the owner or his employees for six months. At the end of this time the charges would be dropped. This saved the City the enormous cost of a jury trial and allowed eleven prospective jurors to apply themselves to more productive activities. My Kafkaesque ordeal may soon be over. Time will tell.
Meanwhile, Edward Szeto, in the company of shadowy backers, has been pursuing his dream of a Burger King empire. After the Ninth Avenue Burger King opened, it suddenly came to light that he had already owned a Burger King on Geary in the Richmond! And he was planning another at 500 Divisadero, in a historical 110-year-old Queen Anne Victorian. The local community banded together and protested. They went before the Planning Commission, but their appeal was denied. However the Board of Appeals decided that a transfer or conditional use from a Mr. Falafel to a Burger King did indeed constitute an "intensification of use." The Szeto forces (commanded by venomous pro-development lawyer Alice Barkley, a name that pops up again and again in these struggles) regrouped and reapplied.
On October 22, a hearing was held before the Planning Commission concerning the Burger King's application for a conditional use permit. These hearings always prove to be an enlightening education into how our system works. Or "works" in favor of large corporations and vested interests, that is. Some months ago our neighborhood successfully fought to exclude a Rite Aid from opening at Ninth and Lincoln Way, a spot directly perpendicular to the Arboretum. Hired gun Bob MacCarthy (who, not coincidentally, had represented the Burger King owner at the Board of Permit Appeals hearing for the Ninth Avenue Burger King) was in the house to fight for Rite Aid's right to be in the wrong place. It was immediately apparent how corrupt some of the City's non-profits are. A number of organizations, including a rep from the Gay Pride Parade, spoke in favor of the "pharmacy." And a whole busload of disabled folks, who don't actually live in the neighborhood, allowed as to how having a Rite Aid in the neighborhood would be of service to them. The Supervisors voted 11-0 to deny the transfer. It was a victory for the entire city.
Also at Planning on the 22nd, the Coke-Bottle-in-the-new-Stadium issue was up for discussion. The rah-rah Giants crowd were also in the house wearing orange pins and evangelizing. Local "community activists" (Glide Memorial Church pastor) Rev. Cecil Williams and (former supe and Mayor wanna-be turned Chamber of Commerce booster) Roberta Achtenberg were there to proselytize on its "warm and fuzzy virtues." School Superintendent Bill Rojas also spoke in favor. I made the following comment before the board: "What kind of message are we sending? The Coke bottle is a giant graffiti. This sends the wrong message to our children! I am certain that Coke will be receiving a tax break for this "donation," so we taxpayers will be footing the bill. I believe that Coke should re-design this playground so that it does not reflect the product in any fashion. We are talking about advertising. We are not talking about whether there should be a playground or not. "Most people, including myself, are completely disillusioned with our government officials, be they elected or appointed. If you decide in favor of this design, this will be another example of the government not doing its job! I feel this design is an insult to San Francisco. It sends the wrong message to children. It needs to be changed and re-submitted."
Not surprisingly, the voice of unreason prevailed and only two members (Dennis Antenore and Cynthia Joe) voted against the playground. So, toddlers will soon be learning how "things go better with Coke!" Fortunately, the Board did the right thing with regard to Burger King. Only two members (Hector Chinchilla and Anita Theoharis) supported the permit. The Western Addition has been spared yet another degradation. We constantly hear about what is wrong with our system, but neighborhood movements like this one show what is right. When people band together, they can make a difference! And decisions made here reverberate far and wide. But we need reform. We need to clean up Planning. We need to remove the under-1,000-sq.-ft. loophole. And, most of all, we need to inform the uninformed about the meaning and value of neighborhood diversity and the health hazards posed by caffeinated sugared water and greasy burgers alike. And all is not yet clear: the Burger King promoters have 30 days to appeal to the Board of Supervisors. This month Edward Szeto will open another compact and covert Burger King on La Playa near Ocean Beach. Rumor has it that other Burger Kings are planned. The struggle continues. .
| This page produced by Harry S. Pariser: Copyright (©) and All Rights Reserved (®). |