A Stitch in Haste

Outright Libertarians notes that San Francisco activist legislators are concerned that the Castro is losing its vitality.

Concerned to the tune of $100,000 of taxpayer dollars:

But up and down the enclave that has been a symbol of gay culture for more than three decades, heterosexuals are moving in. They have come to enjoy some of the same amenities that have attracted the neighborhood’s many gay and lesbian residents: charming houses, convenient public transportation, safe streets and nice weather.
…
But some gay and lesbian residents of the Castro are worried that the culture and history of their world-famous neighborhood could be lost in the process, and they have started a campaign to preserve its character. The city, meanwhile, is spending $100,000 on a plan aimed at keeping the area’s gay identity intact.

Heterosexuals “are welcome as long as they understand this is our community,” said Adam Light, a leader in the Castro Coalition, a group formed eight months ago to address the shifts in the neighborhood in recent years.

“Our” community?

Whoever owns the property owns it. The “community,” whatever that means, includes them whether anyone else endorses that idea or not. It’s elevating the “community” above the individual that drives the oppression of gays in the first place. Why emulate it? Stated differently, I always thought “gay activism” was a quest for inclusion, not exclusion.

Whatever it is exactly that these Castro activists, and the politicians they have bought, plan to do, it will not serve the ultimate purposes of gay rights (i.e., fair and equal treatment) by treating straights unfairly and unequally.

Meanwhile, I blogged about a similar proposal, in the city of Spokane, Washington, over two years ago:

—

“Investing in gay culture?”

Gay activists in this staid Washington city [of Spokane] are planning to create a neighborhood of gay-oriented homes, businesses and nightlife — a development religious conservatives contend would clash with Spokane’s family-centered culture.
…
[P]roponents of the plan say a gay district would signal that Spokane is tolerant and progressive.
…
Even though they face little discrimination, gays stay under the radar in Spokane, said Aspen, a member of the Inland Northwest Business Alliance, an association of gay and gay-friendly businesses that is pushing the idea. “Visibility equals freedom,” Aspen said. “Invisibility we have dealt with all our life.” She predicted a gay district will exist within the next year or two.
…
No public funds will be used to create the district, which is dependent on developers, Aspen said. No location has been announced.
…
“It would help youth struggling with their sexuality to realize they don’t have to go away to a big city to be gay. You can be gay right here in Spokane,” he said.

Strange, in my day (and I’m not that old), we didn’t call them gay “neighborhoods” or “villages” or “districts” or “meccas.”

We called them ghettos.

Activists like this miss the point entirely. The goal should not be to have “someplace to go.” The goal should be not to need such a place at all. “Empowerment” doesn’t mean having the equivalent of a gay strip mall, but rather gays achieving independence through, e.g., education, employment, purchasing power and outreach (e.g., through blogs). There’s a reason the word isn’t “inreach.”

Instead of having the option of living in a “gay neighborhood,” I prefer having the option, through my money and independence, of living anywhere I damn well please. “Visibility equals freedom“? Oh, please. I prefer “Money equals power.” Which is more important — being able to buy your mayonnaise in a “gay supermarket” or being able to file a joint tax return?

How does this not play into the hands of the bigots? “See, you don’t need to live here in Louisiana anyway. You can move to Spokane — they even have a ‘village’ just waiting for you!“

Blacks, and Jews before them, had it right — the point should be to get out of the ghettos, not to set up new ones.

—

The original Spokane proposal did not involve any direct taxpayer expenditures, and let’s assume no anti-property-rights regulation. In that sense it was less obnoxious than the San Francisco proposal. Meanwhile, the sponsors of the “gay mecca-ghetto” idea in Spokane appear not to have issued a press release since June 2005. Doesn’t “activism” imply being active?

Similar Posts:

• On Gay “Neighborhoods”
• From the Archives: On Gay “Neighborhoods”
• “Humanitarian Communist” is Still an Oxymoron
• Is Castro’s Death a Public Good?
• Anything to Make a Buck, or a Bigot, or Something

Filed under: Uncategorized