HH in OB
Just giving you a heads-up about your Happy Hour Guide (March 6). The Joint in O.B. has $2.50 Sculpins every Tuesday. Pizza Port has a $3 select pint or two every Monday through Friday and a great pizza, big salad, and any pint of beer you’d like for $7.95. The Tilted Stick on Voltaire has $1 Rolling Rock all day long until about 5:00, and their happy hour is half off all pitchers, domestic and craft. They’ve got a few on the selection — they’re $6-$8.
Pretty good article, but you should have done a little more digging.
- Reckless OBDS
- Ocean Beach
What Time Is It?
Your page about the places having $2 happy hours doesn’t say whether the happy hour runs all day on those specific days or only during certain hours.
I was just wondering what time the $2 Reader Happy Hour is at each bar? During each bar’s normal happy hour, or anytime during the day until next Friday?
The times of each happy hour vary from establishment to establishment. Please call the bar or restaurant for specific info. — Editor
Nica Taylor’s list of things she loved about being homeless (“Laughing My Way out of the Gutter,” February 27 cover story) really made me think about all the things I have for which I am grateful. I admire her positive attitude and hope offers come to her “like ants on a powdered doughnut.”
All the Stops
What is going on with the Reader’s music section? That once proud and respected section of the Reader that really mattered.
Imagine my surprise when I discovered this week’s exposé about one-hit-wonder Gary Numan (Blurt: “Animated Numan,” February 27). The intrepid reporter asked Numan, over email, such fascinating questions as, “What are your memories of playing San Diego?” “How has your stage show evolved over the years?” Then he pulled out all the stops and asked, “Do your daughters ever watch your stage show?”
Are you kidding me? This is pathetic.
We became aware of the article in the Reader titled: “SD Water Authority: “Pine Valley has water! Kill them and take their water!”. We were quite upset when reading this story. Although we have since learned that this was meant to be satire, and an article of “almost factual news,” we nevertheless remain upset.
Any article which suggests violence in today’s society is unforgiveable and completely unfunny. The fact that they are suggesting violence against us “backward, back country hill people” is outrageous.
I am sure the author and editor felt safe in doing so. After all, we are not people of specific race or origin. We all know if you had suggested killing folks of a specific race or origin there would be riots in the streets, protests, and potential sponsors would be pulling ads. So, I’m sure there was no concern in attacking us “greedy wretches.”
What if folks become panicked about the current water situation — which is nothing to laugh at either — and follow your absurd suggestion? People have overreacted over less suggested violence.
Considering how folks behave when they come up during snows, and the damage they cause to private property, it would not be a stretch to believe how they would behave for water. Perhaps the next article should talk about how the “destructive flatlanders” behave — but of course, there is no satire there. We enjoy their patronage, but not their destructiveness.
We would like to see an apology in a future issue regarding the call to violence and your portrayal of the people in the backcountry.
Walter Mencken responds:
It might also be considered a touch outrageous to suggest that “destructive flatlanders” are such credulous barbarians that they would commit murder based on a newspaper article about underground water. However, if you really do fear their barbaric wrath, then you should definitely warn your neighbors to stop boasting to the press about how much water they have. There’s a drought on, you know.
Would you consider doing more restaurant reviews north of Encinitas? Every time I read the reviews I see nothing but Old Town, North Park, Hillcrest, etc., and nothing to the far north. What gives?
Oh, and I want to see all these so-called farm-to-table operations. Do they all really have their own farms? I’m calling bullshit on them. There are only a couple or so that are really doing it the right way. You might think of doing an article on that. Stone is one, and Bistro West is another.
I wish to respond to the recent letter of Mr. Ross Lopez from the January 30 issue "Entitled to Live in UH", and the article regarding University Heights boundaries from January 16. (Neighborhood News: “Who Cares About Community Boundaries?”)
The Reader article proved to be one-sided. The reporter, David Batterson, did not meet with the University Heights Community Association (UHCA), and never responded to numerous voicemails which I left for him.
Mr. Lopez is in error on several counts in his response. Our current boundaries were not randomly chosen by a small group of people. These boundaries were based upon widely accepted area designations at the time.
An article in the Union-Tribune dated November 29, 1983, discussed the fluidity of boundaries throughout the city, and talked specifically about University Heights. It noted that University Heights had been extensive at one time, but by 1983 the widely held belief was that it had an easterly boundary at Texas Street.
When the residents of the current University Heights united to form its own neighborhood group, it used the Texas Street boundary after discussion with the then- very-active Normal Heights Community Association. At the time, city maps listed the area between Texas Street and Boundary Street as Normal Heights, and the Normal Heights Community Association oversaw the governance of the area.
Once the group chose the boundaries, they approached the Greater North Park Planning Committee — the same group that Ms. Granowitz now heads. That group approved the boundaries and voted September 18, 1984 to place streets signs at the borders, including along Texas Street, to solidify the neighborhood. The GNPPC has used those boundaries for the past 30 years.
The current wish to expand those boundaries appears to be tied to the UHCA desire to remove ourselves from the oversight of the GNPPC.
Mr. Lopez stated that Ms. Vicki Burgess of the SD Development Services recognizes the disputed area as being University Heights. When we contacted that office to verify that statement we were told that Ms. Burgess would not be in any position to provide any type of determination on neighborhood boundaries since that is not her area of expertise. She said that she had not made any statements regarding this issue.
It should be noted that Mr. Lopez and other area residents had been hoping to create a separate neighborhood know as “BeHi,” which is shorthand for Between the Heights. He and others worked diligently for several years to accomplish that goal. Only recently, when it appeared that Uptown Planners would become the sole governing body for the University Heights area, has the push to become part of University Heights been the main objective of the group.
It’s my understanding that Mr. Lopez and his neighbors could designate themselves a self-contained separate community with any name they choose. In doing so they could continue the close relationship they share with the GNPPC and Ms. Granowitz.
Our main objective at UHCA is to resolve the matter of being a united community with the current established boundaries governed by one planning board, the Uptown Planners. Our efforts are focused to that end.
- Bernie Horan
- President, UHCA