Monday DECEMBER 5, 3:00 PM
San Francisco City Hall; ROOM 416
Agenda can be found:
Agenda Items to give public comment:
4. Interim Director’s report
11. Public Employee Appointment/Hiring: Director of Cultural Affairs of the San Francisco Arts Commission
Closed Session to Appoint a Director of Cultural Affairs
The recent SF Controller’s Financial Management Report, the Interim Director’s response and the negative article in the San Francisco Chronicle have discredited the Cultural Equity Grants Program, its staff and ultimately the arts organizations and artists who work in the community.  These actions have displayed a limited understanding of the idea of Cultural Equity as well a lack of awareness about how these grants have diversified and transformed San Francisco’s arts community over the past 20 years.
The Commissioners could name the next Director of Cultural Affairs at the December 5 meeting.
Here’s what you can do:
  1. Come to the meeting: It’s important for the Commissioners to see the program’s constituency.
  2. Before the Commission goes into Executive session to hire a Director, any member of the public can address the Commissioners for 3 minutes.
  3. Testify
  4. Send emails to the Mayor, The Arts Commissioners and the Board of Supervisors by clicking here
  5. Spread this email around
During Public Testimony
You MIGHT talk about any of the following:
  • STOP this process of naming a new Director of Cultural Affairs.  The past two Directors of the Arts Commission were fired for their lack of responsiveness; the community needs assurances the next Director will adopt a different approach.
  • STOP the process of making changes to the Cultural Equity grants Program and its staff based on the Controller’s Report; instead, provide the community the opportunity to register its opinions before considering changes.
  • TELL the story of how Cultural Equity Grants have impacted your work, your organization, your community and your constituents.
  • VOICE your opinion about how recent events might negatively impact your organization.
  • DEMAND a statement in support of the work grantees and staff Cultural Equity Grants programs who have made a positive impact in the community.

Utterly Clueless: Cultural Policy San Francisco-Style (from Arlene Goldbard)

Thanks to Arlene for researching and posting this great article.  Find more about her blog at:

Original post:

Tempers are running high in San Francisco, where the powers-that-be have unleashed yet another full-on demonstration of the cluelessness of U.S. cultural policymaking. This essay is in four sections: I will first describe what has happened; then discuss the context; the response; and finally, explore the reasons why San Francisco and every other U.S. city should consider cultural policy with the seriousness it warrants, shifting from a posture of personality-driven ignorance to responsible pursuit of the public interest in culture.


On 15 November, the City Controller’s office released a memorandum entitled “Results of the Financial Management Review of the San Francisco Arts Commission.” Among the 12 recommendations, two, dealing with the Cultural Equity Grants (CEG) program, are the most controversial. They say that the program should:

  • Cease funding and administering four of its eight initiatives, on the grounds that the program’s enabling legislation authorizes only the “Cultural Equity Initiatives Program (CEI), a Program for Commissions to Individual Artists (IAC), the Project Grants to Small and Mid-size organizations (OPG), and the Facilities Fund (CRSP). The other four are recommended for elimination because they are not cited by name in the city Administrative Code: Native American Arts & Cultural Traditions (NAACT), Innovations in Strengthening the Arts (ISA), Arts & Communities: Innovative Partnerships (ACIP), Arts for Neighborhood Vitality grant categories (ANV)
  • Ensure that no recipient receives more than one grant at a time, on the grounds that 14 of the 172 grant recipients received multiple grants in FY 2010-11. The guidelines say no recipient may receive more than one grant for the same project, but the Controller finds “some risk that the same recipient may use multiple grants for one project” sufficient grounds to limit eligibility further. Over the last five years, the Galeria de la Raza, a long-lived and highly respected, Latino visual arts organization deeply rooted in San Francisco’s Mission District, received 12 grants totalling just under $237,000, an average of $47,000 a year.

The audit was undertaken in the aftermath of the resignation under pressure of Luis Cancel, who became Director of Cultural Affairs in 2007. In San Francisco, Cancel was an unpopular leader whose departure followed on disclosures that he had been phoning in his job from his vacation home in Brazil, making unauthorized expenditures, and acting abusively toward staff. By the time he left, it was widely acknowledged that the the San Francisco Arts Commission (SFAC) was in disarray. The programs that had been doing good work continued, but without functional leadership at the organization’s helm—indeed, despite leadership.

In July, the Commission chose to appoint one of its own members—JD Beltran, an artist without evident experience at the helm of an organization—to serve as interim director. A hurried search for a new director commenced with a call on 1 August and a deadline for filling the position of 9 September. The process has been extended, but an announcement is expected soon.

Beltran requested the audit and has agreed to implement all 12 of its recommendations, which seems precipitous for an interim leader with scant agency experience. Many of them respond to the SFAC’s chaos, to be sure—one recommends ways to encourage employees to report misconduct, for instance—but most respond with bureaucratic solutions that would be identical for any city agency, whether it regulated a fleet of trucks or cleaned the streets. The SFAC’s public purpose—the values that should shape cultural policy in San Francisco—is not part of the frame.


CEG is a stepchild of Grants for The Arts, a municipal funding program subsidized by income from San Francisco’s Hotel Tax Fund, which began in 1961. This is what is known as a “transient occupancy tax,” rooted in the idea that visitors to a city pay a tax on hotel and motel rooms to underwrite activities that attract more visitors. The program funds parades and public attractions like street fairs, but the bulk of the money goes to arts organizations.

In most places, this kind of revenue is distributed according to a “them that’s got shall get” formula, for instance, as a percentage of the successful applicant’s annual budget. The largest organizations, mostly red-carpet institutions, get the bulk of funding. In San Francisco, for instance, in the last fiscal year, the Symphony and Opera each received well in excess of $600,000, while the Ballet and Museum of Modern Art each received just under $400,000—in each case, dwarfing other grants in their categories. There is some diversity within the universe of grant recipients, but the disparity in funding is roughly the same as all those charts we’ve been seeing lately, graphing our growing polarization of wealth.

Over the years, artists have pressured (and sometimes sued) the city to expand the definition of eligibility. In one famous case in the 70s, the San Francisco Mime Troupe, which had received grants from what was then called the “Publicity and Advertising Fund” until being rejected in 1966—evidently on account of its politics—successfully sued for inclusion (although it took a few years for the Fund to implement the judge’s ruling). CEG was created nearly 20 years ago in response to the reality of San Francisco as a multicultural city in which resources continue to be concentrated in largely white institutions. As its name indicates, CEG was created to bring about greater cultural equity, providing support and building capacity, especially among groups grounded in communities of color. Here’s how CEG puts it:

Grants to support the development, sustainability and growth of San Francisco arts organizations that are deeply rooted in, and able to express the experiences of a historically underserved community, such as African American, Asian American, Latino/a, Native American, Pacific Islander, Disabled, Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgendered and Women.

The audit reflects a remarkably naive and uninformed relationship to these contextualizing purposes. It almost seems to have been written by a computer—or human beings impersonating a computer’s pristine disinterest in human events. For instance, the four above-mentioned CEG programs described in the enabling language basically come down to four categories: cultural equity, individual artists, small and mid-sized organizations, and facilities. In terms of content, the four programs targeted for elimination fit these broad categories as to intended recipients and uses, but they have been labelled for clarity of specific purpose. While Shakespeare pointed out that “a rose by another name would smell as sweet,” the machine-like logic of the audit is this: a rose by any other name…should be eliminated.

The audit, focused on financial management, also fails to take seriously key questions, such as leadership, as if the SFAC mess could be sufficiently cleaned up by tidying tracking and reporting systems. Then-Mayor Gavin Newsom reportedly sought a high-visibility national figure when he anointed Cultural Affairs Director Luis Cancel. This turned out to be a mistake, one that was allowed to ripen and fester at length, even as knowledgable, committed artists and administrators complained in vain. Such a lack of leadership emerges again and again in public cultural agencies. Someone with a high profile is parachuted into an unfamiliar community by officials who feel confident that reflected glory will accrue from bringing in a celebrity arts administrator. Cultural policy doesn’t come into it as much as photo-ops at art openings. Oversight is sketchy, dialogue with the larger community is pro forma or non-existent, and a system that was already on shaky ground falls apart from lack of care and knowledge.


Let’s see, now, how does this read? Hmmm….

The city creates a special initiative to respond to residents’ deep desire for cultural equity, one small step toward equalizing access to resources. It is housed at the Arts Commission, along with many other programs and initiatives. This initiative supports artists and groups—mostly grounded in communities of color or other marginalized categories—who have not been able to obtain meaningful resources from mainstream sources. As the story unfolds, the host organism falls into disarray, rotting from the head. Supposedly objective (i.e., astoundingly under-informed and therefore unprepared) auditors are summoned to diagnose and recommend, but they are given a brief that covers only a few questions. Their recommendations are mostlly administrative and general, but they single out the special initiative for significant cuts.

I’m guessing the embedded racism of this story is invisible to the auditors, the tone of whose report suggests a touchingly naive belief in the objective, uninflected, universal applicability of its management philosophy and regulatory approach. No one has offered a better critique of the presumed neutrality of regulators than Anatole France:

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

But the SFAC’s weak cultural competency is not invisible to countless artists in the San Francisco community, who are mobilizing to call attention to the audit and overturn its most damaging recommendations. Community meetings are scheduled, actions are being planned, and—if the circumstances that triggered it weren’t so deeply disappointing—I’d be happy to say a long-deferred public dialogue on essential questions of cultural policy is beginning to take shape.

A message from renowned performance artist Guillermo Gomez-Pena has been circulating at light-speed. Here’s a taste of response from the affected communities:

I have watched Galeria [de la Raza] over the years produce more exhibits and ad hoc cultural events than most organizations their size, and they manage to do it with a shoestring budget and a handful of part time staff members and volunteers. And their extremely well attended shows always get good reviews in the local press. So, the issue here is not “unfair funding” to a shady organization but rather a racist view on arts funding: THE FUNDING OF COMMUNITY ARTS IS UNDER ATTACK! The establishment is closing ranks and, I dare to say, would even consider unthinkable that the city’s large white arts organizations fairly share the ever-shrinking funds for the arts. And they will use audits, lawyers and the mainstream press to state their case.

If this trend continues, soon, not only the experimental and politically-minded artists will be expelled out of the city but the many non-profits of color that give SF a special character will have to close their doors due to insufficient funding. Then, the city will become what so many wealthy people and white politicians secretly wish: A bohemian theme park…minus the bohemians. And all the middle and upper class people will wake up one day to a world of unbearable sameness.

Paradoxically, this year the extremely “favored” Galeria was forced to let go of two precious staff members and to cut the salaries of the rest of the staff, including the director.

In response to the outcry, Interim Cultural Affairs Director JD Beltran has issued a letter to the community inviting people to a meeting on 5 December, saying, “I am reaching out to you to clarify some of the recent findings and our responses to the recent Controller’s Office report, which we have sensed are being widely misunderstood by the community.” Beltran writes that the Arts Commission’s acceptance of the audit’s recommendations “in no way indicated that any funding to the community through our grant programs would cease or decrease.” If that turns out to be true, it will be perceived as an appeasement in response to community mobilization, as the powers-that-be hoping that the promise of money will enable them to evade the larger conversation that needs to happen.


Like many other U.S. cities, San Francisco treats cultural policy like a wholly-owned subsidiary of the arts world. The drama that unfolds behind the scenes is largely a tug-of-war between direct beneficiaries of arts grants: how big is the funding pie? How will it be sliced? Who gets to eat regularly, and who gets the scraps? If the system’s real goals can be deduced from the way things are run, they are first and foremost to satisfy those direct beneficiaries, and almost always, the largest presenting and exhibiting institutions—those with the biggest budgets and most prestitious boards—receive the bulk of funding.

In such an ecology, most community-based organizations—those that define their own work as a response to social conditions and local aspirations as well as an expression of artistic creativity—are forced into a perpetual state of emergence, fundraising mightily just to secure enough resources to survive, but almost never enabled to prosper, let alone attain the much-desired end-state of “sustainability.” Money is important, but true sustainability requires systemic change and support, which is seldom forthcoming.

In such an ecology, the scrutiny of auditors and the burden of punitive management systems almost always falls in inverse proportion to budget size. (I will leave it for another time to explore why regulators feel so much more keenly the fear of being cheated on a small scale by have-nots than of being robbed blind by the haves.)

In such an ecology, of course, there is honesty and hypocrisy, skill and ineptitude, discipline and laxity at all levels. I make no claim for the superiority of the artists and groups funded by CEG, nor for CEG itself in comparison to other public cultural initiatives. But neither is there any basis for the counter-claim—that the well-funded institutions are superior—which is implicit in the way this discourse is framed. There is as much good and bad art, as much good and bad management, in marble palaces as in rented offices. But by and large, the bad work of the prestige institutions costs taxpayers far more and attracts far less public scrutiny, far less draconian response.

I sometimes balk at a simple explanations, but this one seems to be true: taking on the biggest recipients of public largesse offends people who have the capacity to make trouble for whistle-blowers; whereas taking on those deemed marginal carries much less risk.

So what is a better way? I’ve written at length on this subject many times (read my book New Creative Community for a detailed look at means and ends of cultural policy). In brief, then, effective, democratic public cultural policy expresses the public interest in culture in four ways:

  • It is reality-based. It is grounded in an assessment of a community’s character and identity, down to the granular level of neighborhood diversity. It is based on a rich account of cultural infrastructure in all its particularity, of what is strong and what needs development, of what is enduring and what is endangered, of what has been mainstreamed and what has been marginalized. Numeric data can be useful, but you don’t get this kind of thick description without engaging people from all social groups, the more deeply the better, ideally through action-research using arts work as its ground.
  • It regards the entire cultural landscape as an ecology. It addresses cultural development in a way that’s analagous to economic development. Just as economic development initiatives address blockages in the flow of prosperity, cultural policy seeks to mend and strengthen frayed places in the cultural fabric: places where members of certain communities have been made to feel less than full cultural citizenship; places where rich cultural resources exist without adequate mechanisms to nurture, express, and extend them to the full community; blockages to participation in community cultural life, and so on. Interventions may be made in any sector—commercial culture, nonprofit organizations, independent artists, education, health, parks, libraries—always with attention to how each works as part of the whole. Public agencies support, facilitate, collaborate to fill gaps and strengthen existing work, rather than focusing on their own positioning and media visibility.
  • It uses many tools and skills. It has many instruments, including funding, research, regulation, training, providing facilities, providing technical assistance, generating public dialogue, building capacity, and others. Grants matter a lot, but it isn’t only about the grants.
  • The entire community is its intended beneficiary; it is accountable to all. Artists and arts organizations are important constituents for cultural policy, and support for them helps to enact it, but policy isn’t conceived as a special-interest initiative designed just for them. Instead, the ultimate goals are full cultural citizenship for everyone: a diverse, vibrant, and participatory cultural life; ample opportunity for creativity, participation, exchange; and a civic landscape that richly embodies the cultural heritages and contributions of all community members. Artists and arts organizations have critical, essential, and valued roles to play in realizing those goals, but their entitlement to public support is based on their commitment and excellence in those roles, not on budget size or their connection to VIPs. Transparency in public administration earns publc confidence.

Imagine a civic cultural ecology in which leaders are chosen for their alignment with the public interest in culture, for their knowledge of community cultural life, and their skill in engaging and inspiring others. Imagine arts commissioners and other appointees given the orientation and information they need to properly conceive and pursue their roles in enacting the public interest in culture. Imagine a way to audit public agencies that assesses, first and foremost, their effectiveness in embodying local cultural development goals and values, and recommends administrative and other arrangements that can enhance that effectiveness, encouraging a healthy flexibility and more emphasis on responsiveness and accomplishment than on creating a fortress of administrative systems.

Public agencies should track their money to promote accountability, of course. They should be managed rationally and fairly, of course. But they should infuse their every action with public purpose, ensuring that the way they work and relate supports the public interest in culture. Surely, one reason people have responded with such alarm to the San Francisco Controller’s recommendations is that they reveal no hint of alignment with larger cultural purpose.

As it happens, among SFAC’s initiatives, CEG comes closest to being grounded in democratic cultural policy goals, giving community members and policymakers a basis on which to judge its work. Its enabling language (from San Francisco’s Municipal Code, Part II, Section 515) says that:

The Cultural Equity Endowment Fund is established to move San Francisco arts funding toward cultural equity. The goal of cultural equity will be achieved when:

  • when all the people that make up the City have fair access to the information, financial resources and opportunities vital to full cultural expression, and the opportunity to be represented in the development of arts policy and the distribution of arts resources;
  • when all the cultures and subcultures of the City are expressed in thriving, visible arts organizations of all sizes;
  • when new large-budget arts institutions flourish whose programming reflects the experiences of historically underserved communities, such as: African American; Asian American; disabled; Latino; lesbian and gay; Native American; Pacific Islander; and, women.

We see stories like San Francisco’s current drama unfolding over and over again in public cultural agencies: no matter how dynamic and charismatic leaders may be, no matter how good their intentions, when you put people in charge—whether as directors or policymakers—who lack the larger framework of knowledge and understanding that illuminates the public interest in art, they can’t accomplish much of value. Their focus sticks on placating powerful constituencies, or on generating a certain type of public profile; clueless about what they should really be doing, they exercise their power over underlings as a way to reassure themselves they are in charge. The employees who have a strong sense of context and direction are often able to go on doing good work under these circumstances, especially with someone running interference, protecting their work from cluelessness in high places. The work of those without that internal alignment and protection suffers most.

I hope this challenge will be perceived as an opportunity to align San Francisco’s cultural policy with the public interest in art, in pluralism, participation, equity, and transparency. In the meantime, it’s good to remember how often artists of color are put on show to support allocations to public agencies, as testaments to their commitments to social inclusion and cultural diversity. Listen to Aretha Franklin, As Good As I Am to You”:

If you have a dollar
And I have a dime
I wonder could I borrow yours
As easy as you could mine.
Because when you need my love
And I give time after time
And turn around and found me no returns
Then my friend you’ll be using my dime.


Message from Interim Director of SF Arts Commission

Sent 11/29/2011

Dear Friends and Colleagues:

I am reaching out to you to clarify some of the recent findings and our responses to the recent Controller’s Office report, which we have sensed are being widely misunderstood by the community. The results of that report, and the corresponding Controller’s Office recommendations, are here.

The SFAC’s responses to the audit indicated that all programs will be made legally compliant.  It is most important to note, however, that our responses in no way indicated that any funding to the community through our grant programs would cease or decrease.

The report was an impartial report by the city auditing agency, the City of San Francisco Office of the Controller.  ALL of the agency’s programs were reviewed.  The report does not suggest or dictate agency policy, it simply recognizes shortcomings in certain agency fiscal, administrative, and staffing practices, and its findings also observed issues in the Cultural Equity Grants Program.

The SFAC remains steadfast in its mission, policies, and full support of its highly valued programs, and especially its groundbreaking Cultural Equity Grant Program. To that end, the Controller’s Review provides us with a roadmap as we move forward with polices that will ensure our shared goal of continuing support for San Francisco’s rich and diverse arts and cultural organizations.

In order to ensure optimum public access, we are holding a special meeting of the Full Arts Commission on December 12th, at 2:30 p.m. in Room 416, City Hall. The meeting will be dedicated to addressing the findings in the report and to providing an opportunity for public comment. The Controller’s report will also be discussed at the December 5th Full Commission meeting, which will take place in the aforementioned location from 3-5 p.m. An agenda will be posted 72hrs in advance here. In the meantime, we realize that you may want to speak with someone regarding the report, so we are writing to invite you to contact us directly with your comments and concerns.

Please send your comments to or you may wish to attend the Arts Commission meeting listed above.


JD Beltran
Interim Director of Cultural Affairs

December 5, 2011 SFAC Commission Meeting – Deciding New Director of SFAC


Plan on coming to the December 5 2011 Meeting at:
San Francisco City Hall
Room 416
Agenda has not been posted yet but should be available:

Voice your concerns over how you are concerned over

  • The instability of the arts commission programs and staff arising from the actions of the Interim Director.
  • The lack of knowledge known or sought after BEFORE responding the the Controllers Audit and unilaterally agreeing with all recommendations (NOT  FINDINGS OF WRONGDOING).  This is using a financial and operations report to make arts policy decisions.
  • Lack of understanding the Interim Director has about Cultural Equity Grants and the history is has to the communities of San Francisco.

Voice your SUPPORT for:

The nationally renowned work the Cultural Equity Grants Program has been doing serving the community by providing FAIR peer review panels of applications and essential technical assistance to communities that have been historically and PRESENTLY underserved.

Please spread the word!

Problems at SFAC and Inconsistencies of the Audit

A recent report issued by the Comptroller’s Office claims to have uncovered numerous problems at the Cultural Equity Grants Program. This report, characterized by some as a “hit-piece” and by others (most notably by MacArthur “Genius” Guillermo Gomez-Pena) as “racist,” is an attempt to cover-up the Arts Commission’s primary problem: the agency has no leadership and is headed towards chaos.


  1. The last two Directors of the Arts Commission have been forced the to resign;
  2. The incessant non-professional staff in-fighting, leadership turnovers, staff promotions, demotions and reclassifications and inaccessible financial information weakens the Arts Commission’s ability to support arts organizations rooted in the City’s communities of color and in the LGBT, women’s and disabled communities.
  3. The Cultural Equity Grants Program is nationally respected because it has successfully diversified San Francisco’s non-profit arts community over the past 15 or so years; however, despite the exponential growth of community demand for grants, technical assistance and fundraising advice, the program’s budget has not grown for over a decade.
  4. The Comptroller and the Acting Director found it problematic that Galería de la Raza received $200,000 from the Arts Commission over a five-year period, but they have no problem handing over almost $2,000,000– every year– to the Symphony.
  5. The Acting Director apparently has no background in human resources or personnel management nor does she have a plan to solve the Commission’s toxic staff situation; she repeatedly makes poor political decisions and seems reluctant to consult the community -or even the Arts Commission staff.
  6. Before being moved to the Community Arts and Education category, the Native American grants program’s published deadline was December 15; as of today, no guidelines or application forms have been published.

A Message from Guillermo Gómez-Peña

Here is a response renowned artist and activist Guillermo Gómez-Peña regarding the recent San Francisco Controller’s Audit of the San Francisco Arts Commission; the singling out of Cultural Equity Grants; and the subsequent article written in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Urgente! Zeitgeist SF: A racist view on arts funding

By Guillermo Gómez-Peña

I left San Francisco 2 months ago for my last tour of 2011. I started my journey in Los Angeles and Miami, and then I proceeded to Sao Paolo and continued to Ljubljana. Then came Amsterdam, Mexico City and Rio de Janeiro. Today I am back for one day in SF, en transit to Brussels. I am exhausted, no shit!

It sounds quite glamorous but in actuality, it isn’t. This wild touring life affects my personal relations and my ongoing relationship to the SF Arts community. I truly wish my touring life was more humane but I am part of a growing milieu of US-based performance artists who are being forced out of the country by antagonistic political and economic conditions. Like a Mexican writer said, “It’s the end of Empire and the spiders are running amok.”

Paradoxically the funders in my city tell me that this year my troupe “didn’t do enough local projects,” and “if we don’t increase our local visibility, we might loose our funding for next year.”

It’s truly an impossible situation. The fact is that SF has the largest community of artists per capita in the country and 75% of the projects we do here are freebees, which means others produce them and therefore these events don’t count to the funders.

But our problems are mild in comparison to other organizations.

Today, as I was packing for the next leg of my tour, I read in the SF Gate that Galeria de la Raza, the oldest Chicano organization in the country and an SF landmark as important as City Lights, is being critically targeted for having received “12 grants over 5 years.” I couldn’t believe my eyes. If you put together all those menial grants they don’t even amount to 1/5th of the yearly operational budget of the Opera, the Ballet, the Symphony or SFMOMA.

Targeting Galeria and similar organizations is just the pretext. The real attack is directed to the Cultural Equity Grants program of the Arts Commission, one of the few funding bodies devoted consistently to servicing communities of difference in our ex-“city of diversity.”

I have watched Galeria over the years produce more exhibits and ad hoc cultural events than most organizations their size, and they manage to do it with a shoestring budget and a handful of part time staff members and volunteers. And their extremely well attended shows always get good reviews in the local press. So, the issue here is not “unfair funding” to a shady organization but rather a racist view on arts funding: THE FUNDING OF COMMUNITY ARTS IS UNDER ATTACK! The establishment is closing ranks and, I dare to say, would even consider unthinkable that the city’s large white arts organizations fairly share the ever-shrinking funds for the arts. And they will use audits, lawyers and the mainstream press to state their case.

If this trend continues, soon, not only the experimental and politically-minded artists will be expelled out of the city but the many non-profits of color that give SF a special character will have to close their doors due to insufficient funding. Then, the city will become what so many wealthy people and white politicians secretly wish: A bohemian theme park…minus the bohemians. And all the middle and upper class people will wake up one day to a world of unbearable sameness.

Paradoxically, this year the extremely “favored” Galeria was forced to let go of two precious staff members and to cut the salaries of the rest of the staff, including the director. So this coming Saturday they will do an emergency fundraising event titled PACHANGA. They will be auctioning affordable art starting at $50. How dare you loc/as! This amounts to one ticket to watch #@$%^^^^$#@!

If you wish to help Galeria and the future of the city’s community arts programs please write a letter to the SF Gate editor, circulate this email, and most importantly, show up this Saturday and buy some art. Here’s the link to make you angry:

Gomez-Peña, encabronado