The Mayor of Castro Street

[Nikki]

This has been a labor of love for me - and I'm hoping we can keep the thread alive for a while -

I can tell it's been a labor of love for you Michael.  Again you've been peerless as a mod, and your questions have been stellar in their complexity.

Thanks for your time and patience.

Nikki



Edited to fix quote

[michaelflanagansf]

Thanks very much Nikki and Jess.

[michaelflanagansf]

By the way, I don't remember you answering my earlier question about the location of the People's Temple: where was the Filmore district?  Buildings had evidently been torn down there, but what was the previous demographic of that area?  Poor?  Minority?  African-American?  Or mostly a warehouse district without many residences?

And I had also been curious as to whether the location where Robert Hillsborough first met up with his attackers (at a hamburger stand in a Latino area east of the Castro) is still a Latino area, or is it mostly a gay area now?

For that matter, I have a new question which arises from the last chapter of the book (which talked about how the Castro changed after Harvey died, but prior to 1984 when this book was written).  Is the Castro still almost all a gay area, or has it become in any way a more integrated gay/straight area over the past 25 years?

Here is a picture of the People's Temple, which was at 1859 Geary Blvd. in San Francisco:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveglass/3036359453/

This is an entry from wikipedia on People's temple in San Francisco which has some interesting information on the Temple and Milk & Moscone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Temple_in_San_Francisco

Here is the entry from wikipedia on the Fillmore District, which is the majority African-American district in San Francisco which had the People's Temple on its north border:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fillmore_District,_San_Francisco,_California

And this article give the context and the effects of the 'redevelopment' of the Fillmore district:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/21/BA6511Q4G0.DTL

Use this Google map to locate the Fillmore district as described in the above article:

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=fillmore+district+san+francisco+map&um=1&ie=UTF-8&split=0&gl=us&ei=whWRSdeuCInYsAPMyoS9Cw&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&resnum=1&ct=title

Robert Hillsborough and Jerry Taylor met their attackers at Whiz Burgers Drive-In in the Mission.  It's still there and this site has a map of where it is:

http://www.yelp.com/biz/whiz-burgers-drive-in-san-francisco

The Mission has gentrified in parts since the time of the book - there are lofts on the north side and Valencia street is home to some very classy restaurants (which began opening there during the dot com boom - the Slanted Door is there).  It is still an majority Latino neighborhood - but the gentrification had a big effect:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/e/a/1999/11/29/NEWS3155.dtl&hw=mission+dot+com+boom&sn=010&sc=427

Here is an article from 1996 in the depths of the AIDS epidemic that talks about how the epidemic affected the neighborhood:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1996/05/26/SC44025.DTL&hw=castro+changing+AIDS+neighborhood&sn=010&sc=370

However, the predictions of the dissolution of the neighborhood were premature (and I feel they still are).  Here is an article from about 11 years after the above article predicting the same thing:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/25/MNG2DOATDK1.DTL&hw=castro+changing+AIDS+neighborhood&sn=009&sc=375

What I would say about the neighborhood is this - there is still a strong gay presence there.  But the notion that the Castro needs to be the only gay neighborhood (or that gay people need to live there) is somewhat overstated.  As you can see if you look at the wiki on the Castro, the areas around the Castro are heavily gay as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Castro,_San_Francisco,_California

And the other thing that needs to be said is that the heterosexuals who have moved into the neighborhood have done that for a reason - they like it there, for the most part.  So the notion that there has been some sort of ideological change in the neighborhood are largely overstated, in my opinion.  It is often presented with much handwringing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us/30gay.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I have not lived in the Castro since 1983 - and I've never felt I needed to for any sense of identity, so perhaps my perspective is a bit skewed.  Much was made of the closing of the Elephant Walk in the first article I quote here it was replaced by another bar, Harvey's.  And across the street, in a former camera store (not Harvey's  - it was Wolf camera) is a new storefront residence for the GLBT Historical Society:

http://www.glbthistory.org/

If anything, I think that the Castro is a bit more integrated now in terms of sexual orientation - one which is closer to the vision Harvey had of it than it was right after his death.  That being said, it has also become a very high rent district - so it doesn't have a mix of incomes by any means. 

[dejavu]

Wow, Michael, thanks for all those links.

I'm just on the second one so far, but wanted to note that the outward appearance of the People's Temple, in the first link, really surprised me.  It is so ornate.  The book made me envision it as some dump.  But the Wiki article says it is a former Scottish Rite temple, which probably explains the architectural style.

[michaelflanagansf]

I have an announcement to make - this Sunday I will be conducting an interview with Danny Nicoletta, who worked in the camera shop with Harvey Milk.  I will be asking him many of the questions that we have talked about here.  The interview will be recorded by John [BayCityJohn] and will be posted here as a podcast after editing.

If you have any particular questions that you would like to ask let me know and I'll try to work them into the interview.

Here are links to a few pages on Danny Nicoletta:

http://thecastro.net/street/memoriespage/nicoletta/nicoletta.html

http://www.filminfocus.com/account/dan_nicoletta/

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/24/DD0F149N2C.DTL

Danny and I have know each other for nearly 20 years and should be able to have a good interview.  I hope you will all find this interesting and be able to listen to it.

[dejavu]

This is an entry from wikipedia on People's temple in San Francisco which has some interesting information on the Temple and Milk & Moscone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Temple_in_San_Francisco

A lot of good information in this article.  Naturally, the focus of the book we just read was on Harvey Milk, and it only mentioned the People's Temple a few times in the background.  I remember Harvey's quotes in the book about how he distrusted Jim Jones, and remember that Temple members (including Sharon Amos) worked for his campaign.  But this Wiki article gives a more complete picture of Harvey's interaction with the Temple -- he appeared at the Temple to speak, and he even wrote to President Carter as a character witness supporting Jones, after some investigations began.

I wonder whether throughout it all, Harvey still distrusted Jones but was making the most of his political support, or whether he truly believed that Jones wasn't as dangerous as he turned out to be.

[dejavu]

I have an announcement to make - this Sunday I will be conducting an interview with Danny Nicoletta, who worked in the camera shop with Harvey Milk.  I will be asking him many of the questions that we have talked about here.  The interview will be recorded by John [BayCityJohn] and will be posted here as a podcast after editing.

If you have any particular questions that you would like to ask let me know and I'll try to work them into the interview.

I'd be interested to know what he thinks about:

How would things have been different in San Francisco in the future if Harvey hadn't been killed.

Would Harvey have run for mayor?

And, would Harvey have found a wider statewide or nationwide audience, either on issues like gay rights, or as a candidate.

[fritzkep]

Sounds great, Michael!

I would like to know about the attitude of the police department, as well as the average cop on the beat, toward gay people, how it has changed since the time of the raids, and how well gay police officers are integrated with the rest of the force today.



(And I would love to ask the same questions, some day, about the US Armed Forces, at a time when there would be just about as much integration as with the SFPD.)

[michaelflanagansf]

Sounds great, Michael!

I would like to know about the attitude of the police department, as well as the average cop on the beat, toward gay people, how it has changed since the time of the raids, and how well gay police officers are integrated with the rest of the force today.

Well that might be a little bit beyond Danny's capabilities to answer Fritz - he's not really affiliated with the police so I don't think he'd have any information on the integration of the police officers into the force.  Remember, Danny is a photographer.  He was one of the people affiliated with the camera shop who was really interested in photography.  But I'll pass along the question (as I am with all of these) and he can say yeah or nay regarding whether or not he feels he can answer them.

[Jenny]

12.)  A top lieutenant of Jim Jones who was an Assistant D.A. lived in the D.A.'s offices and the D.A. was elected with the assistance of the People's Temple.  Should Diane Feinstein have removed the D.A. prior to the trial because of these connections and the possibility the prosecution could be compromised?  Some attorneys advised the D.A. to hand the case to a special prosecutor or the State Attorney General  Should he have done this?

I don't understand why you think Feinstein should have removed Freitas "because of the possibility the prosecution could be compromised" by his ties to the Temple. Because he might want to stifle any possibility that the Temple would be brought up in relation to Moscone and Milk? It seems to me the connections were already well known by the time White went to trial, and there had already been press speculation about Freitas after Schmidt's pre-trial statement. Even if Schmidt had been able to bring this up (and I can't really see how he could, unless he could show that Dan White was motivated by the knowledge that Moscone, Milk and Freitas had political connections to The People's Temple, which was not mentioned in White's confession or by anyone connected with the case), there wouldn't have been anything worse than what was already alleged to bring out, would there? They'd already talked about voter fraud. I guess he could have been afraid of those connections receiving more publicity during the high-profile case, but couldn't they have changed their approach once they saw what line Schmidt was taking?

Did Feinstein have the power to remove Freitas from office? I think she should have pressured him to hand the case over to a special prosecutor because he knew Moscone and Milk, was a political ally and would be suspected of bias. I think Freitas ought to have done it himself; I tend to think it was ambition to obtain a showy victory that might cement the support of Milk's gay supporters and Moscone's liberal base before the next election that drove him as much as any fear of repercussions. But I also agree with Hinckle that it was suspicious that there was no  mention of politics by the prosecution; no mention of the animus between Harvey and Dan White and no suggestion that Harvey's lobbying against White might have motivated White to kill him. Even more peculiar was not mentioning Milk and Moscone's connection with gay rights and gay political power and White's statements about "social deviates" and his outspoken opposition to the gay rights ordinance, the Gay Pride Parade, etc.

 And why assign the case to Tom Norman? Yes he'd successfully prosecuted a lot of homicide cases, but was he really the best Freitas could come up with? He doesn't seem to have been known for his dynamism in the courtroom and he doesn't seem to have had anything like killer instincts. The case doesn't seem to have been well-prepared, either: a diligent DA would surely have looked into Dan White's popularity with his constituents and the t-shirts and graffiti expressing hate for fags and solidarity with Dan that had appeared shortly after the murders. He would have interviewed Denman after he called the DA's office and talked about the lack of expressions of remorse or insanity and the way the cops had treated White. Lots of evidence of vicious homophobia. The evidence for premeditation was pretty good, too. Had White ever brought his gun to City Hall before? Even if it was SOP for police to carry extra ammunition when carrying a gun, would he have taken 10 hollow point bullets instead of regular ones? Why would he sneak into the building? And why did he use 4 bullets to kill Moscone, making sure by putting two bullets in his head and then remove the last regular bullet to reload with hollow points before coming to see Harvey? Why did he shoot Harvey twice in the head, once at very close range, after shooting him 3 times in the body? Why did no one question his calm behavior after the shootings, when he evades pursuit, calls his wife and proceeds to walk to the police station he worked at in order to turn himself into friends and colleagues? That could bring one to the taped confession, and questioning why the suspect wasn't interrogated in the normal way.

It's really hard to know whether Freitas was willing to throw the case in order to avoid discussion of City Hall's politics, or whether he was keeping "hands off" in order to be able to say he had not influenced it, or whether he knew how poorly Norton would try it. Whatever Freitas believed, there was no way to find a verdict which would appeal to all the parties. A case that let Moscone and Milk down would confirm the gay and minority votes against him, but a case that nailed Dan White to the wall would guarantee police opposition and the anger of Irish and other working-class white voters. He could have avoided that by handing off the case.   

[Jenny]

Questions for Danny Nicoletta: I guess I'm most interested in how much of Harvey's legacy he saw preserved and for how long. Does he agree that the Castro became much more a gay Disneyland in the early 80s? Did he feel Harry Britt was a good successor who kept people politically engaged? Did he see people trained by Harvey stay in the Castro and work to address causes and elect gays? Did AIDS bring back Harvey's kind of campaigning and activism? Is the Castro changing politically away from Harvey's populism as it becomes more expensive and more integrated by heterosexual families? And do gays still seek coalitions with other minority groups and press each others' issues?

One more: I spent my high school years in Clinton NY, just down the road from Utica, at just about the same time as he did. What was it like to be gay there? What made him come to SF? Did he know about Harvey before he got to SF?

[michaelflanagansf]

I don't understand why you think Feinstein should have removed Freitas "because of the possibility the prosecution could be compromised" by his ties to the Temple.

My thinking was along the lines that this was a very short time after a very large number of people from the bay area had been killed and that Freitas could have been implicated in the mess involving the temple, having had very close connections with them.  It has nothing to do with the Milk/Moscone case - I was thinking more along the lines that the D.A. could have been seen as tainted by his connection with Jones due to the Assistant D.A.'s odd behavior.  Had this come up during the trial it could have possibly compromised the prosecution.  Since Milk and Moscone were murdered only a little more than a week after the Jonestown killings I was wondering why this was never brought up.

I don't know if the mayor would have had the power to do this - it's possible that it would have had to have been the State Attorney General who removed him - Freitas was investigated, btw, because his own election was linked to the People's Temple and there were questions of voter fraud.  And in his defense of Dan White Doug Schmidt brought up the connections between the murders and the People's temple:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/16/INGEM3070J1.DTL&type=printable

Perhaps I should have just asked why wasn't this brought up.  Sorry if it's a poorly constructed question.

[michaelflanagansf]

Here, by the way is Freitas' obit from the Chronicle, which talks a bit about the prosecution of the case:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/19/MNGSOIAHA643.DTL

[Nikki]

I have an announcement to make - this Sunday I will be conducting an interview with Danny Nicoletta, who worked in the camera shop with Harvey Milk.  I will be asking him many of the questions that we have talked about here.  The interview will be recorded by John [BayCityJohn] and will be posted here as a podcast after editing.

If you have any particular questions that you would like to ask let me know and I'll try to work them into the interview.

Since Danny Nicoletta was more associated with the camera shop as photog than as Harvey's campaigner, and he wasn't as involved in the day-to-day politics, I am interested in his opinion on the pervading changes in the Castro during Harvey's campaigns before his election.  We've read that people were moving in and buying the old Victorian houses formerly owned by the Irish.  Was this just smart speculation by the 'new' purchasers, or
was it the result of Harvey's urge to bring together a disparate group: gays, straights, etc.  Simply put, how did the Castro change socio/economically during the Harvey years, and was Danny as aware  of it from his vantage point in the camera shop?

[janjo]

And what does he think of what it is like now? Does he think Harvey's dream has been realised, or would he be appalled that it has turned into a tourist destination? Does he think it has developed in this way, or is it now a good place to live?