Hi Starchild:
I'm not seeing where the document you're citing said "most" people. The report I was referring to is the Mayor's Report to the Greater London Area Council, where he typically makes his over-the-top statements.
I also am pretty certain I don't overestimate the Mayor's power. He's been running the place like a dictatorship ever since Blair brought back the redundant city government. Lucky Londoners now have borough councils, the "greater London" council, the national government (which regulates the Capital's affairs in many areas), and their neighbourhood councils. In the midst of all of that redundant government, Livingstone typically gets what he wants, so long as his new tax or fare hike passes money along to the borough councils.
Cheers,
Brian
Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote: Brian,
What you say makes sense. But the report didn't say "most" people like filming in their neighborhoods. It said "many" people like it -- an important distinction. Your criticisms carry more weight when you quote the source material correctly.
You may also be overestimating the amount of control that Livingstone had over making the contents of the report reflect his personal views. The congestion charge for driving in downtown London that you say he claims most people are in favor of was noted in the report as one of the factors discouraging the city from being more film-friendly, as film crews often have to pay the driving charge for large numbers of vehicles, which adds up quickly.
Love & Liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
The report is written by the City of London under Ken Livingstone -- thus, every contention that "people enjoy [fill in the blank]" is a lie.
Livingstone is a dictator who claims to represent "the people."� When he extended London's congestion charge toll zone to the west, and hiked the fee, he claimed "the people support the decision," despite the fact that the "consultative survey" of the population affected was 3:1 in opposition to the decision (and the "consultative sessions" were all anti-CC testimony from individuals and businesses in the area).� He knew what he wanted, he just did it, and then declared the people were behind him because he's still mayor.
I am sure the film situation is similar.� I knew not a single person in my meighbourhood who liked having his parking space stolen by filming trucks, and who had to tell his/her kids that there was nowhere to play this weekend.
Livingstone likes the "glamour" of hanging out with Bono, etc. and so will happily make taxpayer money available to them, along with a shiny happy "report" that most people just love film crews.� It's likely about as true as his claims that most people are just googah over the congestion charge.
Cheers,
Brian
Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Brian,
I can well believe your experience. According to a UK government report,� (� http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/reports/econsd/film-making.pdf ) filming is a major industry in London:� "The screen industries (including distribution) in London employed 71,500 people�
permanently and used 2.4 million days of freelance work, making an estimated total of� 90,000 jobs...� On the average day in 2005 there� were 35 location shoots going on in the city."�
This is no doubt quite disruptive, though the report notes that "Many residents enjoy having films shot in their� neighbourhood," which I can also believe. It would seem reasonable to find a balance where various uses of park space are given preference in proportion to how many people want to see the parks used for each purpose. But as libertarians I think we can agree that government using filming as a means to generate revenue for itself via permit fees and such is a bad thing.
Love & Liberty,
� � <<< starchild >>>�
I find the demands of filmmakers to be incredibly annoying.
When I lived in Toronto and later, when I lived in London, I was always having my daily walks or enjoyment of the "commons" (including parks) for which I was forcibly taxed disrupted by film crews.
They'd hog the entire park to themselves for hours or even days, shutting out all other uses, and then leave.� In London, the docks, Russia Dock Park, and many of the nicest public parks were constantly turned into giant film studios.
I wouldn't have minded so much if the net result had been the revoking of the $500 per household tax the local councils charged for the upkeep of those "public goods" we actually couldn't use.
However, we were taxed for "parks" that were often unusable during the nicest times of the year (rare sun in the UK).� And to add insult to injury, the well-capitalized film studios not only denied taxpayers access to the parks we paid for, but they also got PAID to do so by government "film boards" funded by -- you guessed it -- more taxes.
There's nothing quite so heart-warming as going out on a rare sunny Saturday to your favorite "public park" only to be told "sorry sir, we're closed to the public today" -- then getting home and realizing that some member of the British nobility, worth several million pounds sterling, is not only enjoying free use of park land you were forced to pay for, but is also getting a "stipend" from your puny, overtaxed bank account.
If San Francisco can avoid this sort of thing, it will only make things better for San Franciscans.
Cheers,
Brian
Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Regarding BART's $250 filming application fees, please also take
note of the San Francisco Examiner's cover story for August 27, 2007
(copied below). While other cities offer subsidies, at least one SF
area agency offers paperwork and a hefty no-guarantees application
fee. (Not that offering subsidies is the way to go either --
corporate welfare can be just as harmful to economic prosperity as
anti-business policies.)
For those at the mayor's office, the page listing the BART fee is
http://www.bart.gov/about/business/Photopermits.asp .
Love & Liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Are the days of ‘Dirty Harry’ in S.F. over?
Joshua Sabatini, The Examiner
2007-08-27 10:00:00.0
Current rank: # 31 of 6,368
SAN FRANCISCO -
Mayor Gavin Newsom’s three-year-old promise for more lights, camera,
action in San Francisco is apparently falling flat as The City
struggles to compete against states offering film producers hefty
subsidies.
San Francisco’s film industry boomed in the 1990s, but began to
decline in 1999 and reached an all-time low in 2003 and the first
half of 2004, when no major motion picture was filmed in The City.
In 2004, Newsom, promising to revitalize San Francisco’s film
industry, overhauled The City’s film office, sunk more money into
the Film Commission and appointed Stefanie Coyote as its executive
director. A film incentive program was also adopted by the Board of
Supervisors in April 2006 and backed by Newsom, making San Francisco
one of two cities in the nation to have one.
In 2005, three major pictures  “Pursuit of Happyness,â€Â
“Rent†and “Zodiac† shot in The City had production costs
reaching $151 million and sunk about $60 million into the local
economy. But since then, no major film has been shot in The City.
While four current television pilots are set in San Francisco, they
filmed only a total of seven days in The City because it is too
expensive to shoot here, according to Coyote. They filmed exterior
shots and then went to Los Angeles, she said.
The City’s incentive program is “not enough†to lure filmmakers
to San Francisco, Coyote said. The program is failing to compete with
more aggressive incentive programs elsewhere, generally funded by
state governments. New Mexico, for example, offers a 25 percent tax
rebate on all production expenditures.
Coyote said she is discussing improvements to the program with
Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, who introduced the legislation to
create the program, and last month met in Alioto-Pier’s office with
city departments to discuss streamlining the permitting process for
filmmakers.
Bay Area producer David Hakim said “despite the hard work†of city
officials since 2004, “very little of substance has been
accomplished.â€Â
A man claiming to be director Robert Redford called in to a KQED talk
show during an Aug. 15 Newsom interview to say he wanted to film in
The City, but wound up filming in L.A. because it saved him millions.
Newsom responded, saying it’s difficult for San Francisco to
“fight against these remarkable rebates†in other locations.
Newsom’s spokesman Nathan Ballard said there’s been some success,
pointing to an uptick in permits issued for filming such productions
as commercials and television shows in 2006 compared with 2005.
Ballard also said the incentive program is relatively new and about
to be advertised in trade publications. “We do expect this program
to take off,†he said.