ACTION: Rialto Cinemas Lakeside is losing its lease

This is an action item. I don't see clearly how, but I trust that some of you there will step forward to guide us!

Zeno

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ky J. Boyd" [email protected]
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Sent: Wed 17/03/10 10:36 PM
Subject: Fwd: Rialto News
Press Release.doc.pdf (273.6 Kb) attached Customer Handout.pdf (72.7 Kb) attached Hello everyone,

Please forgive the mass message, but I wanted to share some shocking news with each of you directly rather than having you read it in tomorrow's paper. *Attached to this e-mail are a press release announcing that we have lost the lease on the building Rialto Cinemas Lakeside currently occupies as of the end of August of this year. *The story is breaking in Friday's Press Democrat. *I've included a link to the current on-line version of the story. *I'm also including a flyer that we will be handing out all customers at the box office beginning on Thursday. *We are deeply upset by this news as I'm sure you are too. *But as Paul Hawken says "Problems are opportunities in drag." *Well this is one ugly drag act. *I wish I could speak with each of you individually, but this is all moving so fast. *Like the song says "We will survive."

Big hugs,

Ky

Ky J. Boyd
Proprietor
Rialto Cinemas Lakeside
Bringing the Best Films in the World to Sonoma County

551 Summerfield Road
Santa Rosa, CA 95405
Tel 707 539-9771 *Fax 707 538-0325

Showtimes 707 525-4840
Rialto Cinemas

Rialto loses lease to owner of Roxy theater

By ROBERT DIGITALE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 at 6:06 p.m.

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/apps/p...W=250&border=0
MARK ARONOFF/The Press Democrat
Ky J. Boyd, proprietor of Rialto Cinemas Lakeside
on Summerfield Road, will not have his lease
renewed for the theater when it expires on Aug. 31.

The Rialto Cinemas Lakeside, which became known in the last decade for independent, art house cinema and frequent community fund-raisers, is losing its lease to the company that owns the Roxy Stadium 14 and Airport Cinemas.

The Rialto's lease for the Summerfield Road theater will end Aug. 31.
“I'm in shock,” said Ky Boyd, the Rialto's proprietor. “I'm dismayed. I'm disappointed.”

The announcement Wednesday left leaders of community groups wondering what will happen to their future fund-raisers planned for the Rialto venue.

“I can tell you that we could not have asked for a better community partner,” said Beth Goodman, executive director of the Jewish Community Center, Sonoma County, which produces an annual Jewish film festival at the Rialto. “I am very deeply saddened that they will be leaving this location.”

She added that the film festival will continue “no matter what.”

Dan Tocchini, head of the company that will take over the theater on Sept. 1 ,said he will keep the art house format and will welcome fund-raisers there.

“We will do the same, if not more, in community involvement than they have” said Tocchini, CEO of the SR Entertainment Group. The Rialto owners “have done a great job running the theater,” Tocchini said, and his company intends “a seamless transition” for both moviegoers and community groups.

The Rialto has leased the theater for nearly 10 years. Among other events, it has provided free movies for Slater Middle School as an incentive to get students to do extra reading of literature.

Tocchini, who was reached at a theater convention in Las Vegas, said he lost the same theater's lease a decade ago to Boyd. Now he is about to regain control.

Boyd said he plans to find another movie house and to draw his “loyal audience” to the new location.

Until then, “we're going to take our brand on the road,” he said. He plans to find a temporary location for such Rialto presentations as the Metropolitan Opera Live and London's National Theatre Live.

Melissa Kelley, the past president of the Sonoma County Public Library Foundation, said the Rialto has hosted the group's annual Chocolate and Cinema fund-raiser for eight years.

“He has been so generous to us for so many years, and I feel a loyalty to him,” she said of Boyd. “I would follow Ky wherever he would go.”

Tocchini, who said his father opened Sonoma County's first “talkie theater” in 1924 off Railroad Square, maintained his company has run many art house formats at theaters over the years.

Boyd, however, noted that Tocchini “could have operated an art house theater for years” but didn't choose to do so at his Third Street Cinemas.

“I don't believe that he can do what I do,” Boyd said.

Copyright © 2010 PressDemocrat.com — All rights reserved. Restricted use only.

Here are the attachments, thanks to Zeno:

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...03-18_1019.png

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...03-18_1020.png


https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...-18_1020-1.png

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...03-18_1022.png

Very, very sad news. They could have done something art house at 3rd street if they were interested in actually pursuing this genre. Unfortunate that this family chose to treat their long term tenants in this fashion...
It wil be a loss to our community if something isn't found that can be renovated quickly...may be an opportunity for a better location near the Smart train and bike paths...what about the old Coddingtown cinemas?

It would be sad to the community of cinamaphiles who love good films to not have the Rialto. If there is a silver lining, maybe it is the Rialto could move closer to the West County, where many of the customers live (I swear that after a show, the stream of traffic heading west is visibly larger) say in the Roseland area where there may be some big spaces, and perhaps some help from Carrillo. Also, there perhaps is some good space in the northwest industrial section of Sebastopol. I'm selfish, I'd prefer not to drive to good films, but walk instead.

This is almost a microcosm of what has happened to our country: crude gain first, quality of life only for the rich. Perhaps the corporate leaders do not realize that the Rialto is more that just a theater. It is an old-fashioned "art house" that did well because they offered entertainment at a fair price, in a welcoming setting and offered good, affordable refreshments.

Something like this happened in Paris several years ago when a restaurant juggernaut, Flo Prestige, quickly sucked up an old old bistro, Balzar. It all hit the fan (with a fine write-up in the New Yorker!) Devotees of the restaurant struck and Flo promised -- perhaps with fingers-crossed -behind-back -- to change nothing. We will probably hear some obsequious platitudes, too.

I, however, plan never to buy a ticket to any of the company's theaters.

VIVA RIALTO!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Richard Nichols:

It would be sad to the community of cinamaphiles who love good films to not have the Rialto. If there is a silver lining, maybe it is the Rialto could move closer to the West County, where many of the customers live (I swear that after a show, the stream of traffic heading west is visibly larger) say in the Roseland area where there may be some big spaces, and perhaps some help from Carrillo. Also, there perhaps is some good space in the northwest industrial section of Sebastopol. I'm selfish, I'd prefer not to drive to good films, but walk instead.

---

This is sad indeed... however, is it possible that whoever got the lease plans to continue it as an art movie house? I mean, the building IS a movie theater. What else are they going to do there? Miniature golf?

I took a couple of days to reply to this issue because I wanted to think about it. I too was shocked to hear this terrible news.

As readers know, I've harshed on Ky Boyd's policy of only having one matinee, instead of running them up to around 5:00 p.m. like all the other commercial theaters. But that doesn't justify being leased out like this!

Ten years of hard work, what I suspect was a large capital improvement cost when they rehabbed the Summerfield Cinemas and made it into the Rialto, and what do they get? The bigger bully operator goes behind their back to make a better offer to the landlord, and sorry buddy, screw you!

It reminds me of The Old Vic and Chris Stokeld being flushed by the owners back in 2003. A loss that still hurts some seven years later.

As for alternative sites for Ky and his Rialto operation, while I have no insider information, the old Coddingtown Cinemas was gutted years ago and made into a hobby shop warehouse store. Even if that space was still configured as a movie theater, who would willingly contract with Codding Enterprises after what they did to Narsi's?

And does Ky have the capital to start anew somewhere else? And why should he have to?

Here's why, it all about the money, and property rights. After years of considering becoming a lawyer, when I left college in 1979, eight incompletes shy of a double major in Philosophy and History, I ended up not applying to law schools five years later. Even though William S. Kuntsler was my hero ever since the Chicago Seven trial in 1968, I didn't want to beat my head against that wall.

The wall being that American (U.S.) jurisprudence is based on English Common Law. And the primary right in English Common Law is Private Property. As a Leftist Radical I felt that I'd spend my professional career frustrated by that limit, plus I did much better on the GRE than I did on the LSAT. So I bailed on that plan to justify the expense and "futility" of studying Philosophy. Isn't that what a University education is for? To secure the highest paying Professional position that one can? Why would anyone go to college just to learn interesting and important ideas? What a waste!?

The fact that later I realized that every non-profit doing the kind of organizing work that I was doing for free, was run by some do-gooder with a law degree who got paid a low (for a professional lawyer) but living wage, rankled. But I still didn't want to crunch the books and study for the bar. That ship had sailed.

Anyway, in thinking about old Santa Rosa money screwing new money, big surprise there, I've compiled the list of theaters that I will no longer attend. The Roxy Stadium 14, The Airport Cinemas (which sucks since they're the closest and most convenient to me in Forestville) and 3rd Street Cinemas (which is no loss since they only show late run movies and I have already seen everything I want to see in the theater by the time anything gets screened there, also weren't they slated to shut down soon?)

That leaves me Petaluma, Rohnert Park and Sebastopol. Not too bad. I do hope an Art Cinema opens next fall in a venue nearby and not run by Mr. Tocchini.

I hope Ky lands on his feet somewhere, but given the nature of this economic beast, unless he has deep pockets, I won't hold my breath.

This sucks, but it's in the nature of our system that quality gets ground under by quantity, pretty much every time.

Just remember that Santa Rosa is at its heart an old conservative cow town and the elite want to keep it that way. Anybody who is having a little too much fun, will be dealt with, eventually, if not sooner.

As for "Miles On Movies", I haven't seen anything new since "Fish Tank" (at the Rialto) on March 1. Been meaning to write about it, it's a keeper, but have been distracted by my new found freedom to sleep until noon and do only things that I really, really want or need to do, and only if they're easy!

I haven't even made the inquiries to get invited to pre-release press screenings so I can write about films before they come out. That's my next move for my little project to be a movie reviewer.

The Rialto didn't / doesn't do press screenings. I'm told the Petaluma Theaters do. I'll keep waccoland apprised of any developments.

I did learn a little something about film distribution and film booking, when I was at the Rialto at the beginning of the month. I'll put the details in my next "Miles On Movies".

But in a nutshell, Mr. Tocchini does have economic incentive to squeeze Ky out. Distributors won't open independent films in more than one theater in a market. Because of the economics of the audience demographic. That means that if the Rialto books an art film (which is all they book) the Roxie can't, and vice versa. So if one wants to own the "quality" market, apparently one has to cut out the competition. Sounds stupid to me, but apparently that's the economics of film distribution.

Just cause it's what the economics demand doesn't mean it still doesn't SUCK!

Like the Old Vic closing. Like the Best family razing an apple orchard at a local semi-rural intersection to put in a winery operation, screw the neighbors and their sight lines and quiet. Screw the County's General Plan, money talks and .....

Everybody's seen the famous R. Crumb series of panels showing the "growth" from a lonely prarie, to a frontier crossroads, to a little town, to a strip mall?

Progress, it's a wonderful thing.

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mad Miles:

...3rd Street Cinemas...weren't they slated to shut down soon?

---

If that's true, maybe the Rialto can relocate there. It's already configured as a movie theater, has a good location near public parking, etc.

Hate to see my fave local theater go under; I hope they can survive somewhere.

In the meantime, fans of good cinema should be aware that SFI (the Sonoma Film Institute) shows art films, foreign films, docs and old classics regularly at Ives Hall at SSU. Not the snazziest venue, but inexpensive, and high quality cinema! Also, the Petaluma SRJC campus currently has a weekly film with lecture and discussion. Perhaps these options (as well as driving to the Rafael Film Center or further) can keep us cinema buffs happy until Ky and company get re-established someplace new. And don't forget local film festivals. I think the next one is the Sonoma Film Festival.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

If that's true, maybe the Rialto can relocate there. It's already configured as a movie theater, has a good location near public parking, etc....

---

Dixon,

Good advice on local university film clubs, etc. The only problem being that the Rialto screens brand new first run art/indie films, and those clubs don't.

As for Third Street, I think the lease is owned by Tocchini et al, I don't know who owns the property. But aside from the dank interior that would require a major overhaul to correct, the local parking is not free, unlike the Rialto location.

And not to speak for Mr. Boyd, Ky, but if someone had cut you out of your lease, how willing would you be to negotiate with them for an exchange of venues?

Also the whole distribution issue may be key. If only one theater can release movies like, "Crazy Heart", "The Ghost Writer" (can't wait to see it!), "The Last Station", etc. Then it won't do Ky any good to open a new venue, if he can't get distribution of the upscale films because Tocchini has snagged their bookings along with the venue he's finagled from the property owners.

Again, I'm just learning about how smaller release (i.e. "Art") pictures are distributed. But what I was told at the Rialto on March 1, indicates that only one venue per area is allowed to open them.

Remember me asking a few weeks ago about why "Crazy Heart" opened in Sonoma County two weeks later than a few select large theaters in "The City" and the East Bay?

What I was told is that film distributors open alternative films in central markets, in only a few venues, to test the audience interest in them, before deciding where else to allow them to be screened. And apparently we're too far from the center to be considered a useful test market.

Who would have thought that out here in the foodie, wine country, nouveau riche ex-urbs that we are actually country hicks out in the boonies not deserving of the finer things in cinema, until 'dem city folks have weighed in on what 'culcha to sell to us art snobs?!

Of course, with patience (which I sorely lack!) I can just watch anything I want at home with a netflix dvd some six months after a film is first released. Prior to the current great recession, film theaters were hurting financially. Mostly due to cocooning and home theater technology. But attendance went up in the last two years, because money is tight and people need to get out of the house once in a while.

But this mostly applies to big box, big budget films. From what I've been reading on Slate.com, many of the production companies that make "alternative" films, have taken a bath in the last five to ten years. So not only is production of art cinema down (nobody wants to risk the financing because of the poor track record for this genre) but distribution is also too risky.

My understanding is that film distribution can cost as much, if not more, than film production. Advertising costs being the main expense. Hence the market limitations I've been regailing you with. Again, I'm not an expert on film financing and I'm sure others could fill in the details much better than I can.

What I see is what has been deplored for decades. The dumbing down of culture through mass marketing and lowest common denominator art production. Fast, cheap and easy is how to make the bucks. And it's a vicious cycle. The shittier the films, the dumber the audience, the dumber the audience, the smaller the market for good films.

And I'm not one to disparage the masses as a habit. I think people are smarter than many manufacturers of mass culture credit them. But, since I just spent two hours reading chat on the IMDB board for, "McCabe & Mrs. Miller", I've been reminded that film, like any other art, requires an educated audience to appreciate the more sophisticated artists in that metier. And when most people are only exposed to schlock produced for an unsophisticated audience, the market for the "good" stuff is limited.

So, one art theater per market, the highest bidder wins. The highest bidder is the one with the deeper pockets. Apparently in this case that means Tocchini money trumps Boyd money.

Same as it ever was, same as it ever was....

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mad Miles:

...
So, one art theater per market, the highest bidder wins. The highest bidder is the one with the deeper pockets. Apparently in this case that means Tocchini money trumps Byrd money.

Same as it ever was, same as it ever was....

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

---

"And the days - Go - By...."

I wonder about the possible effect of a letter writing campaign to the owners of the theater....would shaming them help, or hinder?
Mark B.

I'm very sad that it looks like we are loosing the Rialto. I wonder if I will get to see the second half of the Milarepa story, the first was at the Rialto, no where else? Maybe the Sebastopol theater will step in. The Raven in Healdsburg used to get foreign and art movies. I liked that the Rialto was in town and that there were some good food options right next door.

I would love to have the Rialto move to Sebastopol!!!

Me too! When the Sebastopol Cinema's opened, they said they were going to show art film's upstairs. That's not what happened. It would be wonderful to have an art film theater! But where?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by urlove:

I would love to have the Rialto move to Sebastopol!!!

---

My Fellow Film Lovers,

Sometimes I think I write so much that the important details get lost.


On the Rialto/Ky Boyd MOVING to Sebastopol, or Windsor, or Calistoga, wherever (I vote Forestville since that's where I live!):

If I'm correct that film distributors will only lease to one Art Cinema in a market, and if Tocchini sticks to what he's publicly said is his intention, to run the current Rialto site as an Art Cinema (which seems logical given that apparently his primary motivation in taking the lease from Ky is to take over the Art Film market in central Sonoma County, it's not like he doesn't have enough screens to play mainstream stuff on already), then even if Ky opens somewhere else, he will be in competition with Tocchini to lease those films.

And given that Tocchini went to the trouble of privately negotiating with the owners of the Rialto site, clearly offering a better deal than the one they have with Boyd/Rialto (otherwise, why the change/betrayal of Ky and his partner?), who thinks Tocchini won't do the same with the distributors to capture the Art Film market? In other words, even if Ky and partner have the money to move, rehab a new space and open, how will he win the fight for distribution?


On putting pressure on the owners of the Rialto site, Duggan Family Partnership:

Cool, go for it, that's what Ky called for in his leaflet.

But if Duggan Family Partnership were willing to shift their lease to Tocchini, negotiating "privately" (i.e. In Secret) and then informed Ky that he was out, who really thinks the Duggans are going to change their mind?

They know how popular the Rialto is. They have already signed a contract with Tocchini, aka SR Entertainment Group. Otherwise this wouldn't be public information.

Does anyone really think they're going to change their mind at this point?


That's why this sucks so badly. Money and property beat service, dedication, willingness to take a risk, good ideas and commitment to quality and community. It's a crime. But a "legal" one.

Welcome to Capitalism.

Anybody want to argue about how the Free Market guarantees the best possible outcomes?

I'm serious about re-watching "McCabe & Mrs. Miller" all of the themes are there, beautifully shot by Robert Altman and masterfully portrayed by his actors.

What is not being said in all of this is:

Are there issues between Boyd & Partner / Rialto and the Duggan Family Partnerships which led to this ouster? Parking issues?

Was it simply better money from Tocchini / SR Entertainment Group?

Or are there "old Santa Rosa money" vs. parvenu money dynamics?

The fact that Mr. Ky Boyd and his partner are gay, and out about it, part of the equation?

Nobody has dared mention this here, or in the PD, but I wonder how much their dedication to Liberal causes has influenced this decision by the landlords?

It would be interesting to know what was said in the negotiations between the Duggans and Tocchini. We'll probably never know. But I wouldn't be surprised if conservative homophobia didn't have a hand in the matter. And before anybody sues me for libel. I am not accusing anyone of anything (other than greed and insensitivity). I'm "just ask'in."

Finally, the letters in the PD have been pretty good on this matter. I'm sure some enterprising journalist will get to the bottom of this, eventually, and we'll get some facsimile of the story. Or not....

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

Whoah!

The other shoe drops...

Ask a question and it often answers itself.

While engaging in my Sunday afternoon ritual of absorbing the NYT's and PD, imagine my surprise in reading Chris Smith's report about the Rialto lease loss:

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100320/NEWS/100329969/1350?Title=Surprise-plot-twist-for-Rialto-operator

He covers the history, players and plot twists of this imbroglio.

Who knew the new real estate manager was a partner in SR Entertainment Inc.?

I hope Ky Boyd opens a Rialto Nouveau in the West County (Forestville, Forestville, Forestville!!!) and we can convince the art film distributors to only rent to him by boycotting SR Entertainments "new" venture and promising only to watch alternative films screened by Mr. Boyd and partner.

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Me too! When the Sebastopol Cinema's opened, they said they were going to show art film's upstairs. That's not what happened. It would be wonderful to have an art film theater! But where?

---

That was because of that stipulation mentioned earlier in this thread about not allowing an art film to open in more than one theater in an area... Rialto was the designated art film house... only occasionally did a film showing there also show in Sebastopol. Actually I think Sebastopol Cinemas has done pretty we getting around that stipulation... quite a few times it was the only place besides Rialto where an art or independent film was showing.

I'm wondering what is considered "an area"? A town, a county....?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Pterosapiens:

That was because of that stipulation mentioned earlier in this thread about not allowing an art film to open in more than one theater in an area... Rialto was the designated art film house... only occasionally did a film showing there also show in Sebastopol. Actually I think Sebastopol Cinemas has done pretty we getting around that stipulation... quite a few times it was the only place besides Rialto where an art or independent film was showing.

---

Can the Rialto owners afford to redo a raw space into a theatre? If so, perhaps they should look towards Sebastopol, the closet town to thier base of support, and with a warehouse district. Any chance the redo of Barlow building could include a theatre? Barney, where are you, and your architect Kathy Austin? This would be so exciting for Sebastopol.

Another thought: would Sebastopol Cinema rent 4 of the 10 screens to the Rialto?

Are the Rialto owners reading this thread, and if so, please give us some hope that you can relocate.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by urlove:

I'm wondering what is considered "an area"? A town, a county....?

---

That would be an excellent thing to define or have defined about now...

Hey Waccie Film Addicts!

Thanks for all the gratitude for my previous posts on this thread.

As for Sebastopol Cinemas showing "Art" films. You may have noticed that the few single films in that category that show up there, always show up at least a couple of weeks later than when they opened at the Rialto. Part of this selective distribution I've been writing about.

As to what constitutes an "area"? Again I'm no expert but circumstantial evidence shows that our area is ALL of Sonoma County. You don't have the films shown at the Rialto shown anywhere else, at least not until two weeks later, and not all of the films run at the Rialto.

Speculation about Ky Boyd running films at other theaters? Why would another theater owner sublease to their "competition"?

What I learned at the Rialto back on the first, other than what I've already covered in this thread, is that theaters have film "bookers" who contract with distributors for which movies they want to show. But the distributors put the restrictions on where they're shown that others and I have already discussed.

The more I think about a guy being partners in a theater chain, and the new property manager of another theater under different managment, giving advice on who to rent to, to the owner of the other theater. Isn't that a classic conflict of interest? Collusion?

Very slimy,

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Richard Nichols:

Can the Rialto owners afford to redo a raw space into a theatre? If so, perhaps they should look towards Sebastopol, the closet town to thier base of support, and with a warehouse district. Any chance the redo of Barlow building could include a theatre? Barney, where are you, and your architect Kathy Austin? This would be so exciting for Sebastopol.

---

Barney is considering......

[Mrs. Wacco (Linda) is the project manager for The Barlow project -Barry]

Barney is considering... What? details please. Are Rialto owners interested?

Ahh, nothing like drama about drama!

The plot thickens:

Dan Tocchini was on KRSO yesterday giving his side of the story. Here's Chris Smith's summary of that and other developments:

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100322/NEWS/100329902/1068/NEWS12?Title=What-8217-s-true-what-8217-s-fiction-at-the-Rialto-

"...perhaps it doesn’t matter, really, who did what to whom...." Chris Smith 3/23/10

Man, what a smug asshole! Me, "Mad" Miles. 3/23/10

I've read C. Smith over the years and I happen to know one of his neighbors. He may be connected to community in Santa Rosa and environs, his little local news tidbits are often fascinating and touching, but his blase attitude in matters such as this, grates.


There were two letters on this in today's PD. One good, the other excreble and based on Tocchini's version of things:

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100323/OPINION/100329909/1042?Title=Tuesday-s-Letters-to-the-Editor


Here's the overview news article from today's PD:

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100322/ARTICLES/100329917/1350?Title=Supporting-Rialto

The more that comes out, the more it appears that Ky Boyd / Rialto are caught in the grinder of the local movie theater real estate business blood feud / grudge match between David Codding and Dan Tocchini.

As for the landowners comment, "Duggan said he's sorry that Rialto operator Ky Boyd organized a public fight over the lease. 'I don't think it's a very appropriate thing to do,' he said."

All I can say is, what the hell did you expect? You may have worked for the Secret Service, and think everything should be confidential. But when the owner of the best movie theater in miles is summarily booted, people are gonna talk! And the people directly responsible for that booting are not gonna be talked about nicely.


I was discussing this whole mess yesterday with several people. One brought up the issue of the owner's mother's wishes. Were they in a document? Such as a will or family trust? Or were they only verbal? Seemed like good questions to me.

Another person, who works for a separate movie conglomerate (sic.) indirectly indicated that Dan Tocchini is, well, not really liked by his associates in the industry. In other words he's pretty much universally known as an ..... (You get the drift.)

The fact that two people, Ky Boyd and David Codding, have publicly stated that Dan Tocchini's claim that he summarily lost his lease on Lakeside Cinema / Rialto property back in 1998 is false, seems to back up this opinion as to his character. (Hence my characterizing the second letter in today's PD as excreble.)


Moving on, momentarily,

What this person who works in film theaters also told me is that standard industry practice for what constitutes a matinee, is any show before six p.m.. So my years old complaint that Ky Boyd only sells the first show of the day at matinee prices, has been substantiated.

I don't wish to kick the injured here. Overall I am impressed by what he did with the Rialto, and hope he can relocate to an even better, and more convenient location to me! But if he still only sells the first show at a discount, in the face of standard practice at every other commercial movie theater in the land? It's still going to piss me off!

My "industry informant" also mentioned that what constitutes a distribution area is a certain number of miles. But I didn't get that number as I was going to be late for a 4:15 matinee showing of "Repo Men". I made the show and a "Miles On Movies" of it is forthcoming.

And on, and on, and on...

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

Copy of a letter I sent to the PD. Granted, it's nasty and without any clear function, but I just felt like expressing myself.

***

One has to sympathize with the new lease-holder of the soon-to-be-no-more Rialto. He has the near-sole responsibility of determining all movies that are shown in central Sonoma County, and to this burden he's now added the heavy task of taking over the patrons of the Rialto. Hard-working guy, and clearly the only reason could be: he doesn't have enough money.

You'd think that controlling two or three dozen screens, plus the popcorn, would allow you to live pretty well, but apparently not so. He's acknowledged that the programming of the Rialto is superlative, and he doesn't want to change all that: he just wants the business that the other guy has built up over the past ten years.

Clearly he doesn't care about getting into art for art's sake. If that were so, he might have experimented with one or two of his countless multiplex screens that are now devoted mainly to entertaining Beavis and Butthead. No, it must be just the money. If anyone would care to start a fund to help Mr. Tocchini out of his straits, I'll put in a couple of bucks. I don't like to see our better classes suffer.

Or, well, I'll probably buy a ticket to his newly-colonized enterprise when I don't want to drive all the way to San Rafael, though I'd reluctantly support an organized boycott. Likely, he needs a new name for the multiplex; I suggest "the Terminator 8."

Conrad Bishop

I for one will not attend screening at the "new" Rialto.

Brilliant, Conrad. Not many people recognize the true beauty of properly directed and well-expressed sarcasm. This, people, is a perfect example. Not nasty at all, actually; biting, perhaps, but completely within the bounds of civility.

Patrick Brinton

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

Copy of a letter I sent to the PD. Granted, it's nasty and without any clear function, but I just felt like expressing myself.

***

One has to sympathize with the new lease-holder of the soon-to-be-no-more Rialto. He has the near-sole responsibility of determining all movies that are shown in central Sonoma County, and to this burden he's now added the heavy task of taking over the patrons of the Rialto. Hard-working guy, and clearly the only reason could be: he doesn't have enough money.

You'd think that controlling two or three dozen screens, plus the popcorn, would allow you to live pretty well, but apparently not so. He's acknowledged that the programming of the Rialto is superlative, and he doesn't want to change all that: he just wants the business that the other guy has built up over the past ten years.

Clearly he doesn't care about getting into art for art's sake. If that were so, he might have experimented with one or two of his countless multiplex screens that are now devoted mainly to entertaining Beavis and Butthead. No, it must be just the money. If anyone would care to start a fund to help Mr. Tocchini out of his straits, I'll put in a couple of bucks. I don't like to see our better classes suffer.

Or, well, I'll probably buy a ticket to his newly-colonized enterprise when I don't want to drive all the way to San Rafael, though I'd reluctantly support an organized boycott. Likely, he needs a new name for the multiplex; I suggest "the Terminator 8."

Conrad Bishop

---

Gawdaaammm! It jess gits thikr an thikr!

Thanks to Gloria Lagan we now have a detailed history of the film theater bidness in SonomaCo and answers to my speculation about film distribution, zones and all.

I'm still reading it myself.

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

The Long, Ugly Story of the Rialto Deal

March 24, 2010 – 8:01 am by Gloria Lagan

Bohoblog

The Lagan article kinda brings all the the idealism and "save the Rialto" stuff thumping back to earth in a cloud of dust. Jeez, i give up, let the f**ers
have at it and leave me out of it.

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