Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Wake Up, Speak Up
Back to topic - Is it legally permissible for the CP1 Committee members to be included in footage as part of the SD Reader article without obtaining their permission ? I would like a legal opinion from SD Reader staff. I have never seen footage of volunteer committees included in SD Reader articles before this one. If it is the SD Reader's custom and practice to do so, may I please be provided with examples ? Again some are complaining about speaker slips and sign in sheets so I guess those need to be posted in a video to so we can see who was at the meeting once and for all besides "one man."— April 22, 2010 3:01 p.m.
Wake Up, Speak Up
You cannot have democracy if citizens do not have forums where they can speak their minds without fear of retribution. For all those who objected to sign in sheets and speaker slips at this particular meeting, I would ask if you want unauthorized and unnecessary video of volunteer committee members posted ? Right of privacy for some and not others ? Right of free speech for some and not others ?— April 22, 2010 12:32 p.m.
Wake Up, Speak Up
The link was recently added at the end of the article by Ms. Matteo. Of course, the video is also posted on YouTube. If the poster would remove the shots of the committee and focus on "one man", the issue would be resolved in my opinion. There is no need to show the committee in any real documentary sense. This is merely an attempt to try out the "chill factor" so volunteers might feel intimidated. Or at least this is my guess. Footage of "one man" and his opinion is all that is necessary to make the point.— April 22, 2010 noon
Wake Up, Speak Up
Were model releases obtained from the CP1 committee members just linked to this article ? "A model release, known in similar contexts as a liability waiver, is a legal release typically signed by the subject of a photograph granting permission to publish the photograph in one form or another. The legal rights of the signatories in reference to the material is thereafter subject to the allowances and restrictions stated in the release, and also possibly in exchange for compensation paid to the photographed. Publishing an identifiable photo of a person without a model release signed by that person can result in civil liability for whoever publishes the photograph."— April 22, 2010 9:37 a.m.
Wake Up, Speak Up
I don't think you can enforce a ban on parkland without going through a specific process. So the idea of banning loud music and beer kegs would still need to be addressed in the same way that the 24 hour alcohol ban at Kate Sessions Neighborhood Park is being addressed. In other words the proponents of the new idea would have to jump through the same hoops which the Friends of Kate Sessions Park have done. The City will not enforce these suggested bans without community input and Council action. It takes a long time to get any changes authorized by the City.— April 20, 2010 9:41 p.m.
Wake Up, Speak Up
I think the problem at Kate Sessions Neighborhood Park is long standing enough and for whatever the reason had not been solved to warrant the 24 hour ban. Yes, there are far too many bars and liquor licenses given in Pacific Beach which makes it a Mecca for drinkers. Why were so many licenses issued ? What can the bar owners do to raise awareness ? Similar problems exist around SDSU in terms of the disrespectful behavior which flows from uncontrolled drinking. SDPD is probably dividing its time between the bar fights and park problems in Pacific Beach. Rapes, burglaries, and murders too litter the scene in PB if what I read is the paper is accurate.— April 20, 2010 4:54 p.m.
Wake Up, Speak Up
I wonder how the Fourth of July will be at Kate Sessions Neighborhood Park. The City and SDPD seem to be reactive and not proactive. This is why the SWAT Team eventually had to resolve the near riot at the beach. I just hope that there is not a repeat at Kate Sessions Neighborhood Park. SDPD seems to equate the biggest problems at this park over the last Fourth of July. This leads me to believe SDPD is probably not pursuing ticketing at the park with vigor. For a City that is near bankruptcy park violations (if given) would be a Gold Mine for the City coffers. I could not agree more and wonder why SDPD has not solved the problems at this particular park. It seems that the park's problems were not taken seriously by SDPD so the most extreme solution, the alcohol ban, was the only recourse.— April 20, 2010 4:28 p.m.
Wake Up, Speak Up
You bring up an interesting point in terms of SDPD. Could the police be doing more at Kate Sessions Neighborhood Park in terms of ticketing the offenders ? Security guards earn between $9.04 and $12.09 per hour with overtime between $12.93 to $18.19. Managing a security force plus paying for it would be a challenge for volunteers.— April 20, 2010 3:31 p.m.
Wake Up, Speak Up
To outlaw anything at this park would require the same process for the alcohol ban if I am not mistaken. I don't believe security guards have ticketing abilities like the SDPD. So if someone was bringing kegs or playing loud music without a permit under your suggestion, the security guards would have to contact SDPD. How many security guards would be needed and on what days and for how much ? I can see this as a big expense. It would also be very challenging to document illegal behaviors and then evaluate them fairly. I can see either side claiming foul in this respect. I think that it best to proceed with the proposal as it exists and see what the elected officials do.— April 20, 2010 2:25 p.m.
Tamales, Tacos, Flies
El Comal is also a great place in North Park, family run, and formerly near Gabriel's tortillas (best in town) and Panchita's Bakery(Golden Hill location). There is an El Comal in Chula Vista but I have not eaten there. The BBQ goat (chivo) is beyond good. Drooling as I type. El Indio is not great but one step or town above Jack in the Box. The real insiders know where the best Mexican food is. Also, Tony's Jacal in Del Mar (which is an institution since the 1940's) is worth a trip north in my opinion.— April 19, 2010 8:01 p.m.