Burning Man by the Bay
Alameda snubs the Exotic Erotic Ball. Promoters promise lawsuits.
In an alternate universe, 3,500 perverts swarmed into the bucolic bedroom town of Alameda island last Saturday, and nothing bad happened. They waved vibrating dildos over their heads and dosed a few soccer moms with liquid Ecstasy on their way to a huge late-night rave and sex party at Area 51, housed in an old hangar at the former Naval Air Station. AC-DShe played. Porn stars attended to grand marshal Eric the Midget.
|
Article Tools
|
|
But our universe is a bit less weird than sex parties stocked with forty-year-old male kinksters. So on March 9, the City of Alameda ended attempts by the Exotic Erotic Ball organizers to throw their first-ever East Bay Spring Shwing at the base on April Fool's Eve. City manager Debra Kurita denied party permits to the facility operators.
"We got fucked," says Exotic Erotic PR man Chris Buttner, who accuses Area 51 owner John Walker of lying to him, thus costing his company thousands of dollars in wasted marketing and logistics. Walker counters that he told Buttner the city wouldn't go for the sex party idea. Buttner and Spring Schwing organizer Howard Mauskopf are threatening a lawsuit. City officials, meanwhile, have cited several reasons they nixed the event: noise, late hours, potential sex assaults, and too many out- of-towners.
After touring the town and hangar, and contacting all parties, it strikes me that Walker may be the most blameworthy. But both promoters deserve ridicule for even considering such an event in the Land That Time Forgot. I ask Mauskopf whether he's ever been to Alameda or the old base. Of course he hasn't. Entering the twelve-square-mile island via bridge or tube is like being transported to Main Street USA circa 1950. Alameda's 25 mph speed limits are legendary — people who never get tickets get them here. City laws ban buildings taller than thirty feet, and there are no condos either. Ample dog parks have separate areas for small dogs and big dogs.
Contrast that with the 28-year-old masquerade and fetish costume party held every year at the Cow Palace around Halloween. Picture fat dudes with beer bellies and cameras alongside porn stars in skimpy teddies, all watching George Clinton live onstage. Now move that whole scene to the tip of Alameda, past a long-abandoned military checkpoint. Area 51 operates at a converted hangar near the edge of the base that has hosted the TV show MythBusters, Matrix movie sets, and corporate events such as Scion's tire-squealing test track.
Mauskopf says he attended six meetings to organize the event logistics and claims Walker told him the permits were a "mere formality." Their dealings ended, the promoter claims, when he sent Walker a signed contract and $10,000 deposit that was banked prior to February 27, and Walker signed off on the press blitz for the event.
Walker declined several interview requests, but he did say he never received a contract or signed off on a campaign. Mauskopf says the truth will come out in court when he presents bank records and e-mails.
Lisa Goldman, the assistant city manager, says Walker needs permits to hold any event at the hangar, which he leases from the city, and adds that the city shot down Spring Shwing before he could even apply. No votes, no minutes, no meetings were needed: City staff simply heard about the Shwing from community members who saw ads for it online. On March 9, Walker got a fax from the city, effectively telling him to forget about the ball. Mauskopf and Buttner say he waited until March 13 to tell them.
Mauskopf speculates that Walker is strapped for cash and booked the Shwing out of desperation, hoping to coax the city into letting it happen. "We're hurting for clients," confirms Craig, Area 51's office manager and security guard. "And the city wants a permit for every freaking tent we put up."
The Area 51 debacle illustrates the local government's agenda. Alameda wants to grow, but only if growth won't change it too much. Last year, a huge consortium picked to build 1,800 homes and provide nine thousand jobs at the old base balked at the city's specifications. Two weeks ago, another company pulled out for similar reasons. Now, only three groups are competing to be the master developer — an unenviable job that requires mediating between the Navy, builders, money-minded developers, an ossified City Hall, and more than a few political gadflies.
On April 4, the City Council is scheduled to pick the new developer. But there are no guarantees it won't drop out too after dealing with a city that welcomes change so long as everything stays Main Street USA. And Main Street USA doesn't have adult bookstores or DJs spinning psy-trance until 3 a.m. Even rookie promoters know that much.
Editor's Note: Comments are not edited or fact-checked by the East Bay Express.
Did this article run on some unrecognized editorial page? Because it is stuffed with far more snide opinion and allusion than fact or reportage. First, what does ANY of this have to do with Burning Man? Your description of the Exotic Erotic Ball certainly sounds nothing like the Nevada culture and arts festival. I believe that you have slandered the large Burning Man community, and owe them an apology. > "In an alternate universe, 3,500 perverts swarmed into the bucolic bedroom town of > Alameda.." There is no "bucolic bedroom town" on the north end of Alameda. Rather, it resembles nothing more than an empty backlot from some long-abandoned movie studio. Huge avenues, gigantic parking lots, cavernous hangers and multitudes of supply buildings, and nary a Mom & Pop business or an American flag in sight. Perhaps readers should ask how many trips this reporter has made to the base. Or was the florid description of Mayberry solely for effect? > "They waved vibrating dildos over their heads and dosed a few soccer moms with > liquid Ecstasy on their way to a huge late-night rave and sex party at Area 51.." While this approaches something resembling humor, characterizing an event that did not happen in this way suggests that the writer believes this was the likely course of events if it had. I'm not sure how tongue in cheek these comments were intended to be, but it seems to me that implying that patrons would have drugged innocents with "liquid ecstasy" (wtf?? exactly how old is Mr. Downs, and how long has he been a summer intern?) is truly disgraceful for anyone purporting to be reporting, rather than writing copy for some tv celebrity entertainment drivel. I mean, what's the point here, that it's easy to take pot shots at older unfulfilled folks with non-mainstream tastes? Don't get me wrong, I have no interest in the event, haven't ever gone, probably never will. But could we attempt a little tolerance here in lieu of some threat to the rest of us? (And making them up doesn't count. Liquid ecstasy... puh-lease.) > City officials, meanwhile, have cited several reasons they nixed the event: noise, > late hours, potential sex assaults, and too many out- of-towners." They did? Source/citation please? This article is the only place I have seen any reference to the last two issues listed. Are you regurgitating (and/or embellishing) the same secondary sources available to the rest of us? Or did you get this direct from City Hall? And if so, why was it not attributed? That would be almost like actual news... > "it strikes me that Walker may be the most blameworthy." Well that's fascinating. AND...??? Or was that just more pointless unsupported editorializing? > "I ask Mauskopf whether he's ever been to Alameda or the old base. Of course he > hasn't. Entering the twelve-square-mile island via bridge or tube is like being > transported to Main Street USA circa 1950." Really? What looks like the '50's to you as you come out of the Tube? Walgreens? Jack in the Box? Eichler-style apartment buildings? What? Where you daydreaming about liquid ecstasy when you made the drive? If anything, the corner of Atlantic and Webster (where one turns towards the base) looks like any one of a thousand nondescript intersections from San Jose. Mayberry it ain't. So I ask you, Mr Downs, how many trips to Alameda have YOU made? I'm guessing you won't need an abacus for this. > "Alameda wants to grow" According to whom? Certainly not the citizens of Alameda, who have had a density measure in place for years that hamstrings developers and puppet politicians alike. Blanket statements such as this do not serve the illusion of objectivity or discernment well. > "Last year, a huge consortium picked to build 1,800 homes and provide nine thousand > jobs at the old base balked at the city's specifications." Citation please? The reported reasoning had everyuthing to do with the profitability projections and the impending housing slide. Which "specifications" would you be referring to? And since when is Catellus a consortium? Did you mean to say "conglomerate", perhaps? > "Two weeks ago, another company pulled out for similar reasons." See above. Where are you getting this stuff? Because you seem to be scooping the Alameda papers, and I imagine they might like to hire you if you actually have any basis for your reporting. > "On April 4, the City Council is scheduled to pick the new developer. But there are > no guarantees it won't drop out too after dealing with a city that welcomes change > so long as everything stays Main Street USA." Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. What do you know... Catellus leads the pack again, back at the table hoping for more favorable terms this time around. Makes you wonder if an enterprising reporter might sniff out connections between Alameda politicians and Catellus, rather than launching broadsides at such pathetically obvious barrelfish as "forty-year-old male kinksters". And by the way, aside from the street improvements on Park Street, development in Alameda hasn't looked like Main Street USA since about 1890 from what I'm able to glean. Harbor Bay, Bay Point, Ballena Cove, Marina Village, not to mention the entire south end of the island is nothing if not the same sprawl in the south and townhome/business park developments in the north (& Bay Farm) that can be found anywhere else in the Bay Area. Alameda allowed a Victorian amusement park to be razed in favor of a gated condo complex for chrissakes. The only reason that any of that yesteryear atmosphere remains in Alameda is that the residents of Alameda have dug in their heels again and again over the years, and the result is that rather than the entire island being bulldozed piecemeal in favor of apartments and townhomes which would be more profitable and denser than the current stock of Victorians and Eichler-revival ranch homes, you have a handful of faceless developments along the edges of the island, while the rest has been left largely alone. Make no mistake, the development planned for the old Naval Base will do little to benefit the citizens of Alameda, it will simply swell their ranks. Much like what happened to Brisbane across the bay. Look it up. Generic "mixed-use" development brings nothing new to the table aside from increasing the tax base. Quite the contrary, it erodes the character of Alameda one short-sighted decision at a time. > "And Main Street USA doesn't have adult bookstores or DJs spinning psy-trance until > 3 a.m. Even rookie promoters know that much." Oh? Does a lesbian owned novelty shop on Park Street count for anything? And c'mon, no one listens to psytrance outside of Berkeley and Hippie Hill anymore. And I'd be wary of calling anyone a rookie if I were a rookie. Pot, kettle. Kettle, I'd like you to meet pot. Thanks for offending my sensibilities to such an extent that after wasting 10 minutes of my life reading an entirely enlightenment-free article, I've now spent another THIRTY minutes exorcising that aggravation. Phah. PS. Burning Man is sooo 1992. It's become so over-commercialized now... you should probably stay home, or go to an A's game or something. Really, I wouldn't bother. It's really challenging for fundamentalist mindsets.
Comment by Anonymous - May 18, 2007 @ 08:25 AM
David, I think you have it a little backwards. It is a select few on the city council and in the Planning Department that want to grow Alameda out of proportion to its capacity and it was that same City government, not the citizens, that shut down the Spring Shwing. See Robert Gammon's article on who's pulling development strings in Alameda here: http://www.eastbayexpress.com/2007-04-18/news/base-politics/ By your logic, Council, the City Manager etc. should have wanted the event to happen in keeping with their desire to change and grow the city. Most of the people of Alameda do want to keep growth at a moderate pace, but I don't think any of those people had anything to do with cancelling this event. It wasn't a topic around town until after the news broke that the event was cancelled, and even then it was hardly discussed. I believe most people, certainly not the moderate growth movement didn't even know the event was planned until after it was cancelled.
Comment by Anonymous - May 9, 2007 @ 09:07 AM
Hooray Alameda!!! Finally, a city thats soul isn't for sale! Personally, I have family that lives on that idyllic island & I love the 25 mph, cars that actually STOP for pedestrians in the crosswalk & neighbors that ACTUALLY greet you (even if you're a 'stranger'). A party such as the one described is completely out of sync with this beautiful city. A curse on the promoters for even considering that site! The logistics themselves would be a nightmare. Not only that, but would be party goers would for sure be targeted by the local police as they were coming & going from the base (what else do the local cops there have to do?). On the flip side, Rosenblum winery (located across from the base) has for years successfully thrown an open house every four months to celebrate various wine releases. Their open house parties have grown considerably in size over the past few years. However, even with the massive consumption of wine, food & live music - it continues to be a relatively sedate party. Must be the clientele............
Comment by Celestial1 - April 5, 2007 @ 02:34 PM