ACTION: Rialto Cinemas Lakeside is losing its lease

It turns out that "Gloria Lagan" is a psuedonym for the entire Bohemian editorial staff. One of them explains that in the comments section after the article. The comments are worth reading, and there aren't that many of them, yet.

Richard, I understand and also feel your frustration with this whole affair, but to want to wash ones hands of it and walk away?

What part of, "Small successfull, caring and dedicated to the Arts businessguy smooshed (Man I hate that cutesy word!, because of the auto body shop commercials on KRSH, but it seems apropo here) by collusion between established business interests engaged in a decades long real estate blood feud!"

Ky's no saint, I still hate his matinee pricing policy, but the only seeming crime I see him accused of, waiting two week until Dan T. was out of town, to make public his eviction. That just strikes me as cagy PR work. Something somebody with an Arts Managment degree would have learned how to do early on.

I still can't get an answer to the question of what constitutes a film distribution zone. Mileage? Population? Both? But I am determined to find out.

One of the aspects of the public discussion that bothers me is the tone of, "Hey, I just want to see good films nearby. Whatever happens to the Rialto, Ky Boyd, Dan Tocchini, et al is secondary to that."

I suppose that's the bottom line. And I agree with the first part.

But a guy, and his employees and clients, are getting screwed here. Even if it's legal and "just the way business is done", it's wrong.

As I found ample opportunity to say while teaching at San Quentin, No good deed goes unpunished!

Onward,

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

Hey Mr. M Miles

Not really walking away from it, but I am disgusted with the whole deal.

Just wanted to share my favorite Ky Boyd quote, although it's a sad commentary, from yesterday's Bohemian, I don't think it made the extended Bohoblog article:

"What has happened is not moral, it's not just, it's not ethical, it's not right. But it is perfectly legal."

Well put.

I don't know why I insisted on calling him Ky Byrd for so many days. But I corrected my error yesterday, in all of the posts on this thread.

And in case you're wondering, yes, I'm fucking tenacious. Especially when my outrage has been triggered.

As a former colleague in the Green Party, who grew up in Tennessee, said back in the winter of '00-'01, "Miles, you do go on."

True dat.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mad Miles:

Just wanted to share my favorite Ky Boyd quote, although it's a sad commentary, from yesterday's Bohemian, I don't think it made the extended Bohoblog article:

"What has happened is not moral, it's not just, it's not ethical, it's not right. But it is perfectly legal."

Well put.

I don't know why I insisted on calling him Ky Byrd for so many days. But I corrected my error yesterday, in all of the posts on this thread.

And in case you're wondering, yes, I'm fucking tenacious. Especially when my outrage has been triggered.

As a former colleague in the Green Party, who grew up in Tennessee, said back in the winter of '00-'01, "Miles, you do go on."

True dat.

---

*****

Is anyone planning any kind of a peaceful demonstration or picketting? anywhere? anytime? I'd be interested. Shira

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mad Miles:

Ky's no saint, I still hate his matinee pricing policy, but the only seeming crime I see him accused of, waiting two week until Dan T. was out of town, to make public his eviction.

---

Well, I love the Rialto, would prefer that the building not change hands, and feel some sympathy for Boyd and company. But his apparent attempt to initially avoid public dialogue by timing his announcement for when Tocchini was out of town (if that's what he did) is not the action of an honest person who wants truth to prevail. Reading the "Lagan" article has reminded me once again of a basic critical thinking tenet: It's not appropriate to come to any but the most tentative conclusions until we've heard at least 2 sides to the story. Now that I've read the article, Boyd does not appear to be quite the innocent victim I'd thought from reading his version.

Most notably, Boyd complains bitterly about losing the lease to Tocchini without being given an opportunity to negotiate to keep the place, without mentioning that that's how Tocchini lost the building to Boyd a decade ago! It seems that Boyd finds this practice immoral when the building's being snatched from him, but just dandy when he's the one snatching it from someone else. If that double standard isn't hypocritical, I don 't know what is.

It also seems disingenuous for Boyd to say that Tocchini “could have operated an art house theater for years” at his Third Street Theater when, if my understanding is correct, Tocchini didn't have the option of showing 1st-run "art" films etc. in the Santa Rosa area because Boyd pretty much had the local market for such films sewed up--industry booking practices apparently disallow 2 theaters in the same area to show that type of film simultaneously.

I'm no fan of politically conservative business fatcats like Tocchini and company, but Boyd seems to be dealing from the bottom of the deck a bit, at least in regard to his misleading characterization of this situation. I was considering boycotting Tocchini's theater(s), but now that I've seen a less one-sided view of the situation, I'll be going to whatever theater shows the films I want to see.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Most notably, Boyd complains bitterly about losing the lease to Tocchini without being given an opportunity to negotiate to keep the place, without mentioning that that's how Tocchini lost the building to Boyd a decade ago! It seems that Boyd finds this practice immoral when the building's being snatched from him, but just dandy when he's the one snatching it from someone else. If that double standard isn't hypocritical, I don 't know what is.

---

Dixon,

From what I can tell from what I've read in the PD and the Boho site, Tocchini asked to go to a month to month lease, rather than an extended one, while he was focused on building and opening the Roxy Stadium 14. David Coddington, who held the "Master Lease" on the Lakeside Cinemas (now the Rialto), did that, and then rented to Boyd. How is that Boyd's fault?

As for the "lock on art film distribution" that's the distributors call. How is that Boyd's fault? Cause he had the connections that Tocchini didn't have?

From watching films in SonomaCo from '97-'00, and during twice yearly two week visits from '89-'97, I felt the dearth of foreign, art, alternative films here. Since then Boyd has brought them in consistently. Nobody else did that before him. How is that Boyd's fault? Oh wait, that part is his fault, thankfully.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mad Miles:

Dixon,

From what I can tell from what I've read in the PD and the Boho site, Tocchini asked to go to a month to month lease, rather than an extended one, while he was focused on building and opening the Roxy Stadium 14. David Coddington, who held the "Master Lease" on the Lakeside Cinemas (now the Rialto), did that, and then rented to Boyd. How is that Boyd's fault?

As for the "lock on art film distribution" that's the distributors call. How is that Boyd's fault? Cause he had the connections that Tocchini didn't have?

When Boyd took over the Lakeside theater 10 years ago it was a lack luster out of the way movie theater that wasn't getting much business. He built it into an important cultural institution for our community, now that he has made it important, the former leasee wants it back. Tocchini could have created an "art house" in Rohnert Park or somewhere outside of Santa Rosa. I don't think Tocchini has the taste or education to run a quality art theater. Barrie

From watching films in SonomaCo from '97-'00, and during twice yearly two week visits from '89-'97, I felt the dearth of foreign, art, alternative films here. Since then Boyd has brought them in consistently. Nobody else did that before him. How is that Boyd's fault? Oh wait, that part is his fault, thankfully.

---

When Boyd took over the Lakeside theater 10 years ago it was a lack luster out of the way movie theater that wasn't getting much business. He built it into an important cultural institution for our community, now that he has made it important, the former leasee wants it back. Tocchini could have created an "art house" in Rohnert Park or somewhere outside of Santa Rosa. I don't think Tocchini has the taste or education to run a quality art theater. Barrie

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mad Miles:

From what I can tell from what I've read in the PD and the Boho site, Tocchini asked to go to a month to month lease, rather than an extended one, while he was focused on building and opening the Roxy Stadium 14. David Coddington, who held the "Master Lease" on the Lakeside Cinemas (now the Rialto), did that, and then rented to Boyd. How is that Boyd's fault?

---

Yes, Tocchini had a month-to-month lease, and losing the lease is more of a hardship on Boyd than it was on Tocchini, and these are significant facts. I've been clear on all that since I read the "Lagan" article you posted. I'm simply responding to the fact that Boyd talks as if it's wrong to end someone's lease without giving them a chance to re-negotiate, while conveniently neglecting to mention that that's how he got the building from Tocchini in the first place. I'm not criticizing Boyd for acquiring the building, thus ending Tocchini's lease, a decade ago. I'm criticizing him for saying it's wrong when it's done to him, while apparently having no problem with it when he's on the other side of the equation, and for making himself look like an innocent victim by publicly mentioning only half of that story.

Quote:

---

As for the "lock on art film distribution" that's the distributors call. How is that Boyd's fault?

---

Miles, I neither said nor implied that that was Boyd's fault (although, in fact, it could be argued that Boyd's Movies in the Morning thing is an effort to extend the unavailability of those movies to his competitors). If you read what I said more carefully, you'll see that my gripe was not about Boyd's having a "lock on art film distribution". It was about his saying (according to the March 17th Press-Democrat article) "...Tocchini 'could have operated an art house theater for years' but didn't choose to do so at his Third Street Cinemas." If this quote/paraphrase is accurate, Boyd publicly criticized Tocchini for not doing something that Boyd knew damn well Tocchini couldn't do--operate a first-run indy theater in the same region wherein Boyd already had a distribution monopoly. It's this disingenuous criticism of Tocchini that I'm griping about, NOT Boyd's de facto monopoly in the area.

Miles, you're usually a pretty reasonable guy, but you must be really "mad" about this issue, because you're so worked up that you ended up setting up a couple of straw men instead of responding to what I really wrote. (For those who aren't familiar with the "Straw Man" fallacy, it means distorting what someone says into something less reasonable and attacking that, rather than addressing what they really said). Take a deep breath, go back and read what I really said, and quit responding as if I'd said that it was wrong for Boyd to acquire the lease a decade ago or that it's Boyd's fault that booking practices gave him an indy monopoly in the area. I neither said nor implied those things. As I've repeatedly said, the Rialto's my fave local theater and I hate to see it go, but the innocent victim vs. evil businessmen schtick is too simplistic to go unchallenged.

Luv ya anyway :heart:

Dixon

Dixon,

Pretty much all good points, well taken. In retrospect, after doing what you asked (demanded? sic.) I cop to overinterpreting your post, i.e. seeing things that weren't there.

My only remaining quibble is about this:

(although, in fact, it could be argued that Boyd's Movies in the Morning thing is an effort to extend the unavailability of those movies to his competitors).

My understanding from the Bohemian article by "Laura Lagan" is that the distributors require him to run the movies that he gets from them for a specified period of time. His "Movies in the Morning" allows him to show newer and potentially more popular films during his profitable times on the schedule, while still meeting his contractual responsibilities. Does that constitute "hogging" the art film market, as you seem to be saying? I think it's more of a gray area.

Or maybe that information about prescribed periods a vendor has to show a film was in the comments after the article? Sorry, but at this point I'm not interested enough to go back and look.

As for the way he lost his lease vs. how Tocchini lost his ten years ago for the same spot, I give importance to the differences. Tocchini asked to be on a month to month, Boyd was pursuing a long term lease. I find that significant.

You attribute meaning to the way Boyd's represented that history in the public debate. That's less important to me. When there's a beef, I expect every side and their allies to shade the story in their own favor. That's pretty much inevitable.

Often in human conflict, there's no right side and no wrong side. No clear good vs. evil. If one feels one should judge the rightiousness of one side or the other, it often comes down to who is the least objectionable jerk. And, as I just mentioned, gray areas abound.

I'm pretty much done with discussing this issue. Unless some major new development occurs. I'm most interested in seeing if Ky Boyd can come up with an alternative site for an art film theater in Sonoma County, preferably in, or close to where I live!

I never said I wasn't self-interested in this matter.

And Dixon, I assure you that your affection is fully requited!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mad Miles:

Pretty much all good points, well taken. In retrospect, after doing what you asked (demanded? sic.) I cop to overinterpreting your post, i.e. seeing things that weren't there.

---

Now that's what I love to see--people being reasonable! It's so rare, it's like a breath of fresh air.

Quote:

---

My only remaining quibble is about this:

(although, in fact, it could be argued that Boyd's Movies in the Morning thing is an effort to extend the unavailability of those movies to his competitors).

My understanding from the Bohemian article by "Laura Lagan" is that the distributors require him to run the movies that he gets from them for a specified period of time. His "Movies in the Morning" allows him to show newer and potentially more popular films during his profitable times on the schedule, while still meeting his contractual responsibilities. Does that constitute "hogging" the art film market, as you seem to be saying? I think it's more of a gray area.

---

Yeah, that's why I stated it as something which could be argued rather than as a fact. And I only thought of that because it seemed to be implied in the "Lagan" article.

Quote:

---

As for the way he lost his lease vs. how Tocchini lost his ten years ago for the same spot, I give importance to the differences. Tocchini asked to be on a month to month, Boyd was pursuing a long term lease. I find that significant.

---

I've already stipulated that it's significant. I just don't think it makes the two situations quite different enough to make it OK in the first instance and evil in the second.

Quote:

---

You attribute meaning to the way Boyd's represented that history in the public debate. That's less important to me. When there's a beef, I expect every side and their allies to shade the story in their own favor. That's pretty much inevitable.

---

I have waaaay more respect for those rare people who really try to give a fair account of the issue, admitting to their own faults, giving the "devil" his due, seeking dialogue instead of one-sided monologue, rather than spinning things in their preferred direction. And if it's really true that Boyd publicly criticized Tocchini for not doing something that he knew it was impossible for him to do (not showing indy films when Boyd had the local monopoly anyway), well, that's stepping over the line.

Quote:

---

I'm pretty much done with discussing this issue.

---

Yeah, that makes at least two of us!

Blessings;

Dixon

Now we're splitting hairs on a bald head, so just a couple of points and then I'll drop it too.

Ten years ago, Boyd didn't take over a highly-successful, one-of-a-kind business. He bid for a lease on a building.

No one has a lock on art-film distribution here or anywhere else. There are a bunch of distributors: look at what's available in SF, or the difference in programming between the Rialto and the Rafael. Had Tocchini wanted to open an art house, no one was stopping him.

Finally, if I'd been shat on as Boyd was, I might be forgiven for not choosing my words with elegant precision and balance.

I don't see it as a conflict between good and evil. I see it as an example of some people willing to do anything for money, and that's merely disgusting.

YMMV--
Conrad

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

Ten years ago, Boyd didn't take over a highly-successful, one-of-a-kind business.

---

Obviously true.

Quote:

---

He bid for a lease on a building.

---

Yes, a building which was occupied by another, who then lost his lease without opportunity to negotiate. Ky complained bitterly about that specific issue, and that's why I pointed out the double standard (in spite of the obvious differences between the situations).

Quote:

---

No one has a lock on art-film distribution here or anywhere else...Had Tocchini wanted to open an art house, no one was stopping him.

---

If this is true, we've been misinformed by the "Lagan" article.

Quote:

---

Finally, if I'd been shat on as Boyd was, I might be forgiven for not choosing my words with elegant precision and balance.

---

Yeah, we've all said things we've regretted--sometimes on Wacco, LOL!

MMDV

Dixon