The story reported last week by AP, "Spokane's Gays Seek Own District" prompted a flurry of reactions, from freepers, wingnut letter writers, white supremacists (no links, on purpose), and bloggers. Not to mention the world press.
Intellectually honest Republicans shouldn't get too bent out of shape about the idea. The City of Spokane isn't lending any assistance. If a private-sector gay-friendly property developer wants to purchase a building and turn it into a gay-oriented retail, commercial, or non-profit office facility, as permitted under local laws and zoning regulations, that is his or her right.
The success or failure of the endeavor will depend on free-market forces.
From an article in the San Francisco Business Times last March, on a planned gay district in Oakland, where a far greater city role had been eyed than in Spokane:
"In all the cases we've looked at, it's been an organic, indigenous development of gay neighborhoods...." said Gary Gates, who...will publish "The Gay and Lesbian Atlas," a look at the demographics of gay and lesbian couples in 25 U.S. cities, including Oakland and San Francisco.
In contrast to the publicity windfall that finally resulted from ongoing promotion of the idea by the Inland Northwest Business Association, blogger Dave Budge says a "sub-rosa" approach would have been better in Spokane.
Here is a prime example of pouring fuel on an emotional fire. Social conservatives now will be out and about in the cause of family values, and accordingly, the gay community will have much less chance in getting what they would otherwise may have accomplished if they had operated in a sub-rosa and organic manner. Sometimes activists are their own worst enemies.
From Oklahoma City, blogger Chaz at dustbury.com concurs:
....if you're wise, you don't announce in advance that you're going to create a district: you just do it, a building or two, maybe a block or two, at a time, and then present the world with a fait accompli.
I talked today to Marvin Reguindin, a small business owner in Spokane, and chair of the INBA's Vision Committee. He agrees success will depend on market forces, not public debate. But he defends the INBA's central role in publicizing the idea of a gay district in Spokane - including results of a local survey of the GLBT community - because he believes it will let gay-friendly entreprenuers and property developers know the market is there.
Whether gay consumers will actually go out of their way to patronize businesses in a gay district is not clear, he says. Although once such a district reaches critical mass, as in San Francisco's Castro, or on Chicago's North Halsted Street (only blocks from Wrigley Field), things are hopping 24/7. Which, depending on the flavor of the activities, can have a tendency to drive families with children from the area. Yet if what repels them is legal and constitutionally-protected, i.e. the right of gays to patronize gay bars, and if they wish, wear leather while walking down the street, tough cookies, huh?
A debate about gay marriage or gay adoption is fine. Opposing either doesn't by itself make anyone a homophobe. But no one should spend too much time huffing and puffing about Spokane's gay district. It's either going to happen, or not.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at January 24, 2005 02:56 PM | Email ThisFrankly, that latter one sounds like the Fred Phelps position.
I'm confused.
Posted by: ScottM on January 24, 2005 03:07 PMJust remember this when the gay community whines about inclusion. Inclusion to them appears to be creating their own isolated communities, and then claiming bigotry when everybody doesn't agree with them and their 'special' circumstances.
Not going to waste my time with any of it.
Posted by: jimg on January 24, 2005 03:07 PMIf a private-sector gay-friendly property developer wants to purchase a building and turn it into a gay-oriented retail, commercial, or non-profit office facility, as permitted under local laws and zoning regulations, that is his or her right.
Matt,
We expect something more from you that a touchy feeling diversity blog post. Nice to see you support Spokane turning into Capital Hill.
Sounds like you are more a supporter of Ruth Bennett than Rossi.
Posted by: Erik on January 24, 2005 03:13 PMI'm a social conservative and I have no problem with this at all. If it's known that it is in fact a gay development, folks can go there or not, as they choose. It may actually be a positive for business.
Posted by: South County on January 24, 2005 03:22 PMYeah right. Give me a break. Isn't it more accurate to say you are a libertarian? Or a Log Cabin? How many "social" conservatives agree with you? Very few or none.
Interesting piece. Your reference to "huffing and puffing atound" however, is unfounded.
If a local community doesn't want to integrate the GBLT into their area, they don't have to keep quiet about it. Sure, it's going to make waves in the media, hell it's a great story. The media will try and spin it as "intolerance" or "hate speech". But its actually just traditional families sounding their disapproval and non-acceptance of the "Gay" way of life.
But if they remain silent, there is no way to tell the GBLT community they are unwelcome. To me, this is the same argument as having sex offenders or criminals in your neighborhood.
Let me clarify; as a moderate social conservative, I believe homosexuality is "socially deviant" behavior. I have never been shown conclusive proof that it is biological, and the prevailing majority of empirical evidence suggests otherwise.
So don't ask those of us who find the GBLT community repulsive to just "accept" them wanting to establish a "community". There are plenty of ways to counteract the establishment of a "Capitol Hill" like environment. But letting people know what you think and how you feel is certainly a good first step.
On the other hand, hate crimes and hate speech are intolerable. You can disagree with someone's lifestyle, but violence and hateful speech are not the way to get your point across.
Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on January 24, 2005 03:55 PMEverytime someone tries to subsidize something, it ends up dying.
Why not just allow and encourage commerce and individuality by gettting the heck out of the way and letting the free market do its thing. And stop promoting racism; you'd never hear of a skinhead or women only district, etc. Why not just let a neigborhood morph as it will and end up with its own personality and character.
This reminds me of vaporware press releases from technology companies that never amount to anything.
Chaz is right, don't count the chickens yet.
I don't think you're going to get a lot of indigenous gay people staying in a place like Spokane.
Posted by: ninme on January 24, 2005 06:48 PM"On the other hand, if sexual orientation is not a prtected class, then it is like having kids. I can discriminate all I want against or for people with kids. I can pay them more or less -- however I feel about it. I can set up a no-kids community. But I can't then claim that having kids is a special protected class subjecting people who discriminate against people who have kids with hate crimes or other legal recourse."
Uh, Bob? RCW 49.60.030 and RCW 49.60.222 do make "having kids" a protected class. And while "sexual orientation" is not, "family status" does fall under that category.
Sigh - I'm old enough to remember when "gay" meant "happy." Personally, I think we as a culture spend way too much time looking into other people's bedroom windows.
This is just another ploy to stir up negative reactions within the community at large, and to force the community to conform to the standards of the "gay" agenda. Who is being divisive here? If "gays" do not want the straight community's approval or seek our opinion, why must they parade their "lifestyle" ad nauseam? I am not so concerned with what adults to in private, but what they say or do in public is still within my rights to have an "alternative" opinion.
http://briankent.blogspot.com/2005/01/irony.html
I'm not at all bashing gays, so I hope it doesn't come across that way. But I am pointing out that, if we're all placed on a level playing field, these activists seem to be holding double standards. (Tasteful, reasoned comments are welcome.)
Posted by: Brian on January 24, 2005 08:29 PMIf we as Christians or Jews have to accept sodomy as acceptable behavior, we have lost anyway.
When this camel gets it's nose under the tent, it will influence all decisions.
Screw the dems, if caving into this crowd is what it takes to get elected, take it.
We should be like the oppressed Jews in the era of Acts. Lets keep our faith and let our masters rot in hell.
If you would see them "change" somehow, pray for them, okay? We all have to be careful about the logs in our eyes - and we all have to be careful in our righteous claims - are you sure God judges their sins more harshly than yours? I'm not casting any stones, that is for sure.
I hate to be the one to break it to you: REALLY MACHO, HETEROSEXUAL in most cultures around the world - like the guys that really have an eye for the ladies - would strike many Puritan-ethic protestant Christian American males as gay. We are talking about guys who hug (Europe and the Mid-East), hold hands while walking down the street (Africa and Southeast Asia), and kiss (on the lips in Sicily!).
So get off it, because you are really embarassing yourselves, and are doing absolutely NOTHING to advance the cause you claim.
I'd like to know the cause of Spokanes recent budget woes.....
Moral rot is a very big deal to some of us.
Have you ever heard of the Roman Empire?
I am not advocating harassment of any kind, and of course I should make sure my own house is in order first. But those of us that believe homosexuality is sin should not be hindered in our first amendment right to state our opinion. This sin can surely destroy a nation.
Homosexuality is a learned behavior and a choice, but please try to hate the sin, and not the sinner. If "gays" want to start a legal business they can, but don't tell me I have to stand idly by and give silent approval to a "gay" business district and lifestyle.
Your post is full of oxymorons. A "moderate conservative"? "Letting people know what you think and how you feel" is a good first step, but "hate speech" is intolerable?
I've come to expect internally consistent arguments from you, Matt.
As for my view, I currently live in a fairly sedate neighborhood, but in the past I have lived in areas of other cities with plenty of gay men nearby, and I have to say they make great neighbors. They are always willing to chat, keep a nice house generally, and will help you out if they can. Those are qualities that Seattle is sorely missing, even with all of its self congratulation over how caring and sensitive it thinks it is.
On the other hand, I don't want to be anywhere near lesbians. Sorry, but I've generally found them to be far too angry at men (I've never met a gay guy that was angry at women!). Come to think of it, Seattle is considered a Mecca of sorts for lesbians. Perhaps that explains why it isn't a friendly town.
Now, that is what I think and feel about lesbians. Was that hate speech?
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 24, 2005 11:25 PMOr a white supremist district in Mount Vernon?
Or how about instead of a gay district in Spokane, a lesbian only district?
Can we have a polygomist district in Boise?
Oh for the days of hyphenated Americanism based on ethnicity - We have entered the days where ethnicity has become sexuality (see stories on the Philedelphia Nine.) We are truely losing the language.
"People talking without speaking, people listening without hearing. And the words of the prophets are written ..."
Interesting Matt how the market is ok to decide if a gay district will work in Spokane, but let the market rule anywhere else like say land use or health care? - nope can't do that, eeh?
Posted by: Jericho on January 24, 2005 11:30 PMThis is much like Russian Brooklyn, where Russian-friendly developers rent/lease to Russian business owners. This creates a community, thus more Russians move into the neighborhood. Now, if you want to start jumping on me and saying "Russian != GLBT", that is your right, but I think you're misunderstanding the aim of the developers. They want to create a community that will serve to their market segment. Once this community is created, they will have a quasi-captive audience, thus creating a barrier-to-entry for non-GLBT businesses as well as an incentive for them to operate in this district and not elsewhere.
Brilliant marketing if you ask me.
As Matt points out, let market forces run their way. Either this will take hold or it won't; I believe that it will... but not for a number of years (economic re-development can't happen overnight).
Jericho asks if we can have a polygamist district in Boise. Absolutely, if the market forces allow for such a group of individuals to establish their businesses and focus their beliefs around polygamy, they should be allowed such an area (without stating the obvious that everything must be on the up-and-up).
Here's an alternate scenario... suppose a pro-life, conservative land developer begins to buy up land in... Berkeley. Is it against the law for him to do so? No. However... do you think he'll have much luck renting space to pro-life, conservative business owners? Likely not. This is the same idea... and honestly I don't understand the resistance.
Posted by: bmvaughn on January 25, 2005 12:06 AMPosted by Erik at January 24, 2005 03:44 PM
Erik, the level to which the left is willing to stoop to attempt to take political advantage never ceases to amaze and disgust me. Troll somewhere else, please.
And,
Alasdair,
As a hisroty major, I enjoyed reading your few sentences on the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.It's all so simple. Oh, you may want to stop drink coffee out of that mug you got for Christmas....Or winter festival ..whatever
Frankly, there is not enough good paying jobs to attract lots of people to Spokane - let alone a large influx of gays. Political leaders in Spokane are out to protect a few families' interest while doing just enough for citizens to stay in office. That is on top of WA's onerous business environment. We can just look to our east and see businesses relocate to Idaho.
The whole idea is a quick fix gimmick by local leaders. Some cities try to get a new stadium or a new team. Spokane has tried an "alternative" approach.
Oh, if two men hold hands while walking down the street, as a previous poster said is done in sokme cultures, that is not exactly masculine in our culture. I imagine some in those clutures consider male hand holding a little suspect. But hey, I live in Eastern WA, so what else can you expect from me?
Posted by: Dennis on January 25, 2005 08:50 AMBut hey, I don't believe in evolution, either. Feel free to disagree with me on that,too (but that probably is off topic).
But seriously, I never used the word "sodomites," but since you mentioned it, Sodom and Gomorrah are located under the Dead Sea. What does "history" teach us about that?
That we refuse to learn from history.
I don't think that I said that you had to believe as I do, only that I have the right to state my beliefs. Your condescension is showing.
Posted by: it is a big deal on January 25, 2005 10:26 AM
Your unique "interpretation" of history is rather quite humorous. You should be a fiction/fantasy writer. I would suggest a historical fiction writer, (as you seem to take an interest in history) but historical fiction usually has SOME level of reality and probability along with the storyline. Your style seems better suited to pure fantasy.
Brad: I believe that you are a history major. However, I suggest spelling your field of expertise correctly in the future so as to not give a false impression of ignorance.
Posted by: Jaqson on January 25, 2005 11:17 AMThese two statements are just my wry sense of humor, in case anyone had doubts. I stand by the rest of the post. Hope I didn't confuse anyone, including myself.
Indeed the Romans could have been suffering from the ill effects of lead, as well as their morality problems. One does not necessarily exclude the other.
If you don't like gays, don't shop in the proposed district. If you think homosexuality is wrong, that is your right, but it is the right of those who feel otherwise to act upon their feelings, as long as they don't violate your rights; there is no right to not be offended.
The whole idea should stand (or fail) on its own; if there is a large enough demand for a gay district in Spokane, it will be economically successful; if not, it will fail. In any case, it might be considered a win for those in Spokane who do not wish to associate with gays, because the gay-themed establishments will be in one nieghborhood, instead of scattered throughout the city.
Yes, there is a dichotomy between the gay rights groups' stated desire for inclusiveness, while carving out separate enclaves, but doublespeak can be found on the other side as well. Most people do not like having their basic premises on a subject challenged, and will sometimes engage in rationalization to justify a double standard, especially if they have a personal stake in the issue.
Posted by: timekeeper on January 25, 2005 01:27 PMSure, let's allow the market forces to work on this issue. But why should we keep quiet? Is it because we are afraid of attracting bad publicity?
The last election may serve as an indicator of where this nation stands on homosexuality and homosexual relationship. Eleven state's voted to ban gay marriage! We have momentum moving against this conservative "moral" issue. Why let it deflate now?
I agree that we should be tolerant, but we should choose selectively. Trying to block the gay liberation movement only fans the fire. In a sense, Matt and P. Scott are right, keep your trapper shut if you can't say something intelligent. Don't spew "hate speech" by attacking the GBLT community with violent rhetoric. A message of love and compassion will do more in our favor than one of hate and disgust.
Pray for the poor sinners, and make your views known- but don't resort to ignorant statements about "fags" and "homos".
Posted by: CR ACTIVST on January 25, 2005 01:47 PM"Pray for the poor sinners, and make your views known- but don't resort to ignorant statements about "fags" and "homos."
Brad, you have it right. At what point does decency become abnormal? I am 'in your face' with a name which my abnormal obsession with words found after being described as such...but I sure hope my stepson, grandchildren, and others have a real life and do not obsess over my own predicament...
Should such a facility be set up? Sure, let the money run.
I, despite my name, will not be there...
Posted by: smegma on January 25, 2005 06:55 PM"Yes, there is a dichotomy between the gay rights groups' stated desire for inclusiveness, while carving out separate enclaves, but doublespeak can be found on the other side as well. Most people do not like having their basic premises on a subject challenged, and will sometimes engage in rationalization to justify a double standard, especially if they have a personal stake in the issue."
Your reasoning for justifying the "doublespeak" of the homosexual cause by saying that it exists on the "other side" as well. Then you go on to give absolutely NO examples. I've supported both sides of this arguement in my life, and it pains me greatly that such ignorance runs rampant (generally speaking, this is certainly one of the more enlightened crowds I've seen) in discussions of the issue.
It always seems to come down to homosexuals and their supporters accusing those for preservation of marriage as being hypocrites and bigots but present nothing more in the way of reasoning to support their cause. Then the evangelical christians accuse them of being sinners but don't try to explain anything beyond that. Both sides are correct according to their own beliefs of what is right. But neither will actually try to discuss it with common ground logic and thus it goes nowhere.
Posted by: Jaqson on January 27, 2005 11:42 AMClaims that religious conservatives are ridiculed/harassed because of their beliefs, while spewing hateful invective like we've seen from several of the posters here. Calling someone a weak-winded bible-thummping fundie is spiteful, but calling someone a sodomite who will burn in hell is distinctly nastier.
Claims that two men or two women holding hands is "flaunting their lifestyle", but having no problem with the same (or far more egregious) behavior from straight couples. Why is it that a woman having a picture of her girlfriend on her desk is more upsetting than a man having a picture of his girlfriend?
Equating homosexuality with child molestation is equivalent to equating celibacy with pederasty, such as the catholic priest scandals of recent years. Some of the priests may be facultatively gay, but not all of them, especially those who have molested girls.
Citing scripture (especially Leviticus) which condemns homosexual behavior, while ignoring some of the other prohibitions (lobster and bacon, anyone? They're also no-nos, as are tattoos and clean-shaven faces).
Decrying activist courts for striking down sodomy and marriage statutes, and then running to the same courts when elected officials make decisions they oppose. (I am thinking of the Mount Helix and Mount Soledad crosses in San Diego).
(since you dragged marriage into the discussion—I didn't mention it) "Defending" traditional marriages such as Britney Spears and her 55-hour marriage, or the maritial shenanigans of the often-divorced (always to opposite sex spouses)while trying to ignore the long-term monogamous gay couples such as my mother's former neighbors (together for over 10 years). Go to my blog and read my archives if you want to know *my* position on gay marriage; it's probably not what you think it is.
I did not provide specific examples because of a desire to avoid being needlessly provocative. Additionally, I support the social conservatives on some of these issues (especially the Mount Helix court case, which resulted in the city transferring the land to a private charity; the courts decided it was legal under the terms of the original grant). Attacking those whose share common ground with me is counterproductive; it provides ammunition to the left, and it violates Reagan's 11th commandment. Someone who agrees with me 80% of the time is not my enemy; he is my friend, with whom I ocassionally disagree.
Posted by: timekeeper on January 27, 2005 01:47 PM