By Erin Sherbert
By Erin Sherbert
By Leif Haven
By Erin Sherbert
By Chris Roberts
By Kate Conger
By Brian Rinker
By Rachel Swan
I love Eliza's (Eat, June 7) for the reason you slam-dunk them. You want to be catered to and stroked and mollycoddled by waiters? I want quick and efficient service. Most of my colleagues only have an hour for lunch, and they're delighted that they get serviced so quickly without a lot of idle chitchat. That is real Asian. Any time I've asked for clarification, the answers are satisfactory.
Have you ever heard of making ends meet? Meeting payroll? Paying bills? Does volume ring a bell?
You need not be so caustic and venomous in your assessment just because you have access to the printed page. Your overtones sound jealous. You sound WASP-y, callous, and rude.
If only you realized how many customers "linger" at a table -- hogging the space and time ... you would be more sympathetic about move on, please. I get aggravated when I see couples sipping coffee after dinner for seemingly hours while there is a line. It's a very selfish attitude. Not an "us" mentality or considerate.
While at restaurants where the tab is $100-150, then you should feel free to "sip" and linger all you want! You're practically paying the mortgage.
If you knew all the sweat and blood and tears that have gone into these two restaurants, you would ask for forgiveness and kiss the feet of all the workers!
Your poison-pen, haughty, ugly American attitude is offensive. Unfortunately you're part of what's wrong with our ungentle society.
Hot and Soured
Thank you for blowing the whistle on Eliza's (Eat, June 7). I think I'll Xerox and send your review to all my pals who work around Civic Center. They keep dragging me there because "the service is so good" and "the food is wonderful." I finally just dug in my heels and refused another badly seasoned, mushy, quasi-Chinese meal served with smart-alecky sauce.
Stephanie von Buchau
In the Doghouse
A roar of applause to Amy Linn and her all-too-accurate portrayal of apartment hunting in San Francisco ("Exile in Rental Land," June 7). As a dog owner, I viewed more than 60 apartments before I found two that would accept me and my pet. Both were overpriced dumps, resplendent in the wall-to-wall shag native to this fair city. Both required near religious experiences to obtain; both were vastly overpriced.
Throughout my search, I found it would have been easier to move in with a troupe of clog-dancing Norwegians than one well-trained dog. My job, immaculate credit history, and charm were no match for the surly, narrow-minded, and suspicious landlords I encountered here. As my faith in S.F. property owners plummeted, I became more aggressive and comical in my dealings. "You can't accept dogs? What do you think of goats?" "It has a lawn? Great! Can I dig a swimming pool there?" As I became more obnoxious, my housing results improved. In further housing hunts, I found my success rate grew as I became less tolerant. The more I bickered about price, the more the owners wanted to rent to me.
As recommendation to all renters, new or old -- take no shit from S.F. landlords. Do not tolerate overpriced rents or inflated and legally questionable deposits. Negotiate for reasonable terms. Don't be afraid to live in nontraditional or less-popular neighborhoods. As renters, it is our responsibility to keep the market competitive and let the landlords know it is our money they're living on. Reasonably priced housing exists in San Francisco. It is our job to find it and maintain it.
What are you people thinking? Reel World is one of the main reasons I look forward to reading SF Weekly and here I come to find that you're getting rid of it!
As a person who works in the San Francisco media, it was nice to read the column and catch up on information that I'd missed. It was always a good read -- informative and entertaining. So why are you getting rid of it?
I know you're under new ownership, management -- whatever -- but Jesus, get a clue. Don't mess with something good. Michael Fox's column is good -- so if you're getting rid of it, then hey, maybe there's one less reason to read your paper. I'm afraid to find out what you'll be axing next.
World Without Fox
Michael Fox's Reel World column was a consistently informative and useful source of info for this Bay Area filmmaker. To lose it to make way for more reviews is simply foolish. The Bay Area has a large circulation of mediamakers to whom the column was highly valued -- it was also something the Guardian didn't have. Bad move.
In his recent article purportedly about Epicenter Zone ("What's Shakin' at Epicenter?" June 7), James Sullivan created a highly misrepresentative image of the space. Rather than attempting to give an accurate description of Epicenter, its volunteers, and our objectives, Sullivan chose to sensationalize an animosity that few of our current volunteer staff are a part of, by highlighting interviews with two people who at this time have only a peripheral involvement with the space.