RichmondSFBlog reader Gideon alerted us to this story that ran on CBS News recently about an unwelcome parker in the outer Richmond District.
It seems that Larry Flynt’s Hustler Club, located downtown on Kearny Street, utilizes a special mobile stripper truck to entice visitors to their club. Women dance inside the back of the truck on Friday and Saturday nights, trying to lure customers to pay a visit to the adult club.
But when the truck is not working, it’s being parked in our neighborhood. It first showed up at 37th and Balboa but after many complaints for “indecency” to Supervisor Eric Mar’s office, was towed for having expired tags.
It showed up later at 42nd and Geary, and continues to park in the neighborhood. Supervisor Mar tells CBS that he’s gotten a lot of calls about the truck, which during its first stint at 37th and Balboa, was close by the Anza branch library and Lafayette Elementary School.
Mar has had trouble getting the owners or managers of the Hustler Club to move their titillating truck to another location. So he’s working on introducing new legislation to ensure that these kinds of vehicles can be towed.
What do you think? Are you bothered by this vehicle parking in the neighborhood? Leave a comment to let us know.
UPDATE (Apr 17, 2012 @ 3:45pm): Supervisor Mar called today to let us know that he is not planning to pursue any additional legislation to resolve this issue. There is a city law that has been on the books for about 12 years which prohibits a commercial (advertising) vehicle from parking in the city. Mar worked with the SFPD to initially tow the truck for expired tags, and then when it returned, notify it that it was subject to a $250 – $500 citation if it remained parked due to the city law.
Mar said he spoke with the manager of the Hustler Club who indicated the truck has returned to Las Vegas and won’t be parking on SF streets anymore. “If I had to do legislation, I would have,” Mar said. “But working with the police and residents has successfully resolved this issue.”
Sarah B.
I don’t quite get it, is that a large viewing window on the side of the truck or is there a peephole somewhere?
And Mar, do something about punishing the graffiti makers and their parents marring the Richmond too.
I don’t particularly like it, but scantily clad women are all over ads on the street, tv, etc. If the truck is just parked I’m not really sure it’s a priority to deal with it. Do we really need more micro-legislation?
I am glad this is getting some publicity. As a Lafayette Elementary School parent, I drive my daughters to school every day and we pass this vehicle parked near the intersection of Geary and 37th Ave on most days on our way to the drive-thru drop-off line at the school. This vehicle is parked within a few hundred feet of the Anza Library and with a half a block of Lafayette Elementary. Every time I drive by this vehicle I wonder what my daughters are thinking as they see the images of the women on this vehicle. I will be happy if they are forced to park it elsewhere.
I just wish there was a strip club in the neighborhood, too…kidding. đ I actually feel somewhat neutral about it.
I couldn’t care less about the truck. Whst I really find offensive are the people living in GG Park and the run-down motorhomes parked along Fulton, leaving their garbage.
I’m not sure I understand this as I should;
-why would a truck for a club downtown park so far away? that doesn’t make any sense.
-if it has expired tabs or it is parked illegally or whatever, it should be towed.
-do we really need a special law to deal with this? couldn’t the owners of the truck simply cover it up when not in use, thus keeping the pictures that upset people from being seen when it’s parked? Why do we have to keep running to the government to solve a problem like this, which would be better for everyone if they just put a tarp over it and tied it down.
Plus, I think a previous commenter said it best – the people living in GGP and who park their junky motorhomes are more of a threat than this, and need more attention. Put a tarp on the Hustlermobile and that way everyone’s cool.
@njudah – Looks like whoever mans/drives/staffs the Hustler-mobile must live out in the Richmond District.
Sarah B.
Why isn’t it illegal to drive along with scantily clad women poledancing in the back of your truck? talk about distracting drivers behind you. or am i understanding this truck wrong? is it more a mobile pole that only sees action when it stops?
I find the truck parking nearby weird but mostly because I cannot believe this truck exists legally.
My daughter also attends Lafayette, and seeing the truck parked on 37th just up from the school and library has taken me aback in the past couple of weeks. I’d rather it not be parked adjacent to a place where kids congregate. And I’m glad I don’t live on that block!
That said, I’m with njudah — enforce the laws that are already on the books re: registration, ask the driver/owner to cover the truck when it’s parked and not in use, and move on with life. And yes — enforce the no camping/overnight parking laws in/around GGP, and clear out the campground at the top of the Sutro steps from Balboa St. (on the King property). Would be nice if the blight laws could be enforced there, and that’s a much larger concern for me than a truck with scantily-clad women on it.
Why is it when a discussion about a specific problem comes up, everyone comes up with their own laundry list of pet peeves that should have priority. I don’t get it. The homeless people in the park are a different problem that has nothing to do with this truck. Stop bringing random things up and discuss the issue at hand.
I don’t have kids so I’m somewhat indifferent about the subject matter of the truck. What I find so egregious about it is that it’s a billboard at all. At street level. In an area where I live and that has no street-level billboards. Or at least not many of them, just a few plastered on the sides of banks and liquor stores in busy commercial districts. I wonder if there is a way to apply the laws regarding, say, erecting a billboard on my roof to this mobile billboard parked in my neighborhood.
Here is the truck:
http://www.ktsf.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/stripper-truck.jpg
Oh no, my 7-year old will see a picture of girl in bikini. He will be scarred for life. LOL
What’s the big deal?? Are we living under Sharia law or something?
When I went to the library last week I actually thought it might be there for a private party and I was like “jeez way to be subtle about it, folks”. Glad it’s just that the guy lives near there. My toddler son was probably hoping it was some sort of wheeled breast-feeding truck, but other than a small amount of disappointment realizing it was not I don’t think he was otherwise traumatized.
Here are my reactions…
1). It’s not legal to stand in the back of a moving vehicle to begin with, so first off I hope that it’s parked when they’re doing their thing.
2). As far as the truck being parked here, and I’ve seen it when I go to the library, I think “Why the heck is it parked here?!” It reminds me of the Channel 5 News truck that’s always parked on 18th Ave by the YMCA. Makes me go “huh?”
3). Then I think about the American Apparel ads all over our buses, bus stops and newspapers that commonly feature young women with their butts up in the air and think that’s much more insidious. At least with this, I know *exactly* what they are selling and so do the people in their, um, moving advertisement.
4). THEN I think that if they need to park somewhere, they should park pretty much anywhere else – not next to a school/library.
5). Then, I think about the penis that is scrawled into a cement sidewalk square next to the school I work at, and roll my eyes and laugh.
I doubt the truck is that big of an issue to warrant a law being passed. How about tackling other issues in the neighborhood like, people running stop signs, thefts, etc. A parked vehicle is a parked vehicle. And spare me the cries about it being parked next to a library and school, have you seen what they allow women to wear ton TV these days? If you have a young child that listens to pop music, they’ve likely already been exposed to half dressed women anyway. If anything, I could see an issue if the truck was rolling around the Richmond with girls dancing in it, but from what I’ve read and seen that is not the case.
If folks are so worried about under dressed women in the Richmond, they better relocate before the heat wave hits because I believe people traverse through the Richmond to get to the beach…….probably by way of the Hustler Truck.
explain it away as a bouncy house for big people . . . much better than having the cigarette (cigs or booze) advertisement truck parked near a school and I can always think of much better things for our elected officials and law enforcement to working on.
I’m sure that via all this publicity “mr. flint” will soon be lining the re-election coffer of mr. mar, then let’s see who objects.
I think people are bringing up other District issues because Mar is considering legislation to prevent the trucks from being parked in the neighborhood. In other words, with so many other issues that exist in our district, Mar is focused on one in which may not be what everyone wants to see, however, this truck is really not any different than any other vehicle that has advertisements.
If the tags are expired or is parked illegally (e.g., tow zone, blocking a driveway, etc.), then yes, it should be towed. However, this should also be applied to any other vehicles even if they have frolicking bunnies on the side. Instead of wasting time and resources on yet another, specific law that effectively goes against the first amendment; I would rather see Mar focus on ensuring the enforcement of laws already on the books.
I don’t like the truck, but I don’t think that is legal grounds for its removal. I would like to see the current laws enforced (if they apply to this truck) but do not see the need for specific legislation. I’d like to see other existing laws applied to issues that affect quality of life in our neighborhood (illegal dumping, graffiti, homeless/camping). I don’t think Mr. Mar should legislate this one issue. I feel as if he tends to address small issues and doesn’t address the larger issues (see my list above).
No more new laws, Please, can we focus on something like the ratty mobile homes junking up Fulton near the park? C’mon, Mar, let’s try and accomplish something meaningful!
I find the truck disturbing…I liked the idea of the owner covering it up while it is parked and not in use. He should have done it just as a respect to his neighbors. While it was parked in front of the Anza public library, my daughter and I had to walk by it to get to story time. “100s of beautiful girls and 3 ugly ones” it says on the side…I don’t think that is really a family-friendly message to have plastered on the side of a truck in a neighborhood like Richmond.
Take it away. And take away those new massage parlors (“foot” and otherwise) that are popping up all over the Richmond. Keep the trash in the Tenderloin. Those who have no problems with it certainly would if their daughters showed an interest in doing that for a living. It’s a gateway to illicit activities. Don’t fool yourselves.
The first amendment guarantees free speech for each of us. It does not guarantee that we will all like what is said. Personally, I’d be more offended if a Fox News van (and all that it represents) had made its home in our neighborhood.
Regarding a complaint above about a laundry list of other issues being brought up in this discussion – our city has limited resources. It’s fair game to debate what gets priority for those resources, both legislative, enforcement, and likely the costs of defending such a new law in court. It has _everything_ to do with this topic.
1. Enforce existing laws.
2. Avoid special interest laws.
3. Know the difference between unsavory and illegal.
It’s hard to escape sex in our society. I don’t know how parents raise their kids today in this environment of sex driven media, kind of makes you wonder about our priorities!
I do mind that it is parked near the library which gets a fair share of kid traffic.
Like most others, I don’t like large commercial trucks or transient RV’s parking on residential streets, Fulton St & Lincoln Way included. However, given Mar’s left wing, ‘progressive’ mindset, I don’t expect Mar to do anything about the homeless RV’s that pollute our area. (I nearly stepped in human extrament dumped from an adjacted homeless RV a while back.)
On the other hand, Mar loves to restrict businesses in a myriad of ways so maybe he will do something to prohibit the parking of large commercial vehicles in neighborhood. I won’t hold my breath, but it would be more useful than banning toys in happy meals. Besides, Mar doesn’t live in the outer richmond so I doubt he really cares about any of this.
Where are the taggers when you need them? If we were in a conservative part of the country, you would see mother’s protesting in front with their signs. Where are the protestors? Negative publicity would mean bad business. If they do dancing on Sat & Sun, don’t they need a permit? Aren’t trucks limited to a certain time for parking? Wouldn’t it be funny to park another big truck beside it to shade it? There’s got to be a law limiting advertisement or else Richmond would be filled with billboards. I usually see roaming trucks with advertisment. The word is “roaming.” Shouldn’t it be roaming?
Put a tarp over it while parked and lets move on to micromanaging something else.@ Khaki no need to down the Tenderloin respect others a bit willya?
It’s not appropriate for this neighborhood and it bothers me every time I see it. Rent a parking space south of Market! Kids lose their innocence too early these days and that should offend everyone. This district needs a new supervisor — preferably one with a backbone.
Why doesn’t Mar focus on a REAL problem in the Richmond such as all the ADA lawsuits closing down various businesses?
Oh wait, he handed out pamphlets.
Then there are all the potholes on the streets.
He planted flowers to make things look “pretty” and have his picture taken.
The noise and other problems at the 10th ave. Jack in the Box? Oh, they have to close between the hours of 4 and 6 A.M. not 2 A.M. as the residents wanted.
And let’s not forget the infamous Happy Meal law. Sooo important to keep those toys and the nasty fast food out of kid’s hands. Then Mar admits he’s a frequent eater of fast foods himself.
If he really was so concerned about the health of kids, why didn’t he do something when he was with the school district?
Schmuck.
WTF? This is San Francisco, not Jackson, MS.
I think that this is not appropriate for it to be parked in neighborhoods where children can see this. There is enough sex exploitation in the world today with television and everything else do we have to have it right in our neighborhoods to. What has the world come to and what kind of message does this send to our children, this is not ok and it needs to be stopped !!!!!!
I’m sorry, children won’t be scarred, and their innocence won’t be lost by seeing a truck with images of dancing women. Kids are damaged by far more important things- substandard education funding, lax security at schools, abuse at home, poor nutritional choices at school and home (especially for lower income children). That’s the stuff worth getting outraged over. Not some b.s. non-issue like this. If seeing this truck is the most traumatic thing your child experiences during their K-8 years, then you don’t have a lot to complain about.
Who cares, it’s no different then having the truck advertising Victoria’s Secret. Is this for rent?? đ
UPDATE (Apr 17, 2012 @ 3:45pm): Supervisor Mar called today to let us know that he is not planning to pursue any additional legislation to resolve this issue. There is a city law that has been on the books for about 12 years which prohibits a commercial (advertising) vehicle from parking in the city. Mar worked with the SFPD to initially tow the truck for expired tags, and then when it returned, notify it that it was subject to a $250 â $500 citation if it remained parked due to the city law.
Mar said he spoke with the manager of the Hustler Club who indicated the truck has returned to Las Vegas and wonât be parking on SF streets anymore. âIf I had to do legislation, I would have,â Mar said. âBut working with the police and residents has successfully resolved this issue.â
Sarah B.
This truck bugged me. A Commercial truck parking in residential areas purely to avoid paying for parking bugs me. Anyone parking their car in the Richmond who lives elsewhere to save on parking or parking tickets bugs me. And SF residents or businesses with Nevada plates – to avoid CA registration fees and CA smog laws – really bugs me.
Thanks for the update, Sarah!
So, is this for vehicles that are solely for the purpose of advertising? If not, aren’t all plumbers, doggie day cares, caterers, news vans, Fed-Ex, MUNI, etc. all in violation? Which, if the latter is true is crazy.
FYI, certain counties in Nevada require emissions testing.
Here is a video tour of the Hustler Mobile Strip Club operating on the streets of San Francisco: http://www.imperfectenjoyment.com/2012/04/hustler-strip-truck/
The Outer Richmond is a family neighborhood and this is just FlyntCo trying to get free publicity
There may be laws on the books preventing ad trucks from parking in residential neighborhoods, certain kinds of vehicles parking near a school, or businesses dealing with pornography being too close to a school. But there’s also something called the First Amendment, and banning images like this on public streets comes very close to violating Hustler’s Constitutional free speech rights. That may be why Supervisor Mar chose not to pursue legislation.
I’m glad that working within current laws and with the cooperation of Hustler, this truck has been removed. But, again, pursuing legislation. That could have been tricky.
I love how liberal San Francisco…a supposedly sexually liberated place..gets its panties in a bunch about women in Bikinis. Ugly old men running naked in Bay to Breakers…oh that’s fine. Smoking hot women on the side of a car however…completely outrageous!
You always here about social conservative Republicans being uptight but in liberal San Francisco beautiful women are offensive to people.
If I lived next to where this truck parked I wouldn’t think twice about. It wouldn’t even register on my things to give a shit about mental list.
“âIf I had to do legislation, I would have,â Mar said.”
San Francisco has enough micro-climates. We don’t need more micro-legislation (Happy Meals, Pet Stores, Stripper Trucks?) that will just add more and more bureaucratic overhead.
Dear The Richmond,
Can we please get ride of Eric Mar now?
Thanks,
San Francisco
If this “truck” was parked on kearney and Columbus in front of their business and a much adult neighborhood I wouldn’t give a hoot! But, since I drive right past it on the way to ” stop drop and go” then yes this truck is a bit much. I mean in front of the public library for crying out loud. I do get that some kids in this day and age are exposed to more than their fair share but there are still very old school parent who would like to have to explain to our kids what a stripper is much later than elementary level. I don’t take my kids to bug ya during your lap dance don’t park your truck in front of my kids school to provoke many questions! Got it!!
Mar is not suitable for the BoS. He should be back on the school board and working on adequate funding for school buses and rescinding the school lottery. As I do not drive I am not looking forward to riding Muni with all the “under 18” freeloaders if he and Campos have their way with SFMTA.
Why doesn’t he go after the campers and commercial vehicles parked overnight on Fulton? How about addressing all the slavery (sex and Chinese restaurant workers) and illegal immigration in our District? Further, as he is against big business, how many of the “mom & pop” restaurants and Chinese plastic goods stores are owned by the same people?
If he is so anti-advertising, why does City Hall sell naming rights for real estate and push advertising on Muni and its “shelters”?
Frankly, library branches are more dangerous for kids than the pole-dancing truck. I detested having to go to the Main Branch stacks when I was in high school in the early ’70s because they were full of the sort of people camping on the sidewalk and on Fulton. The last good year on Muni was ’68. District Elections and gerrymandering only keep the machine in control.
Parents, if you expect that your children will lead sheltered lives, it will not happen in San Francisco. That ended in the 1950s.
Where are the ADA activists when you need them?
Oh C’mon,
We know what Eric Mar’s problem is….Hustler actually found a new parking spot in the Haight. Yes…he actually thought McDonald’s was trying to skirt the issue of the Happy Meal ban…..
http://twitpic.com/9bcquh
âIf I had to do legislation, I would have,â Mar said.â
Typical, Eric Mar. Too busy thinking about petty legislation than taking care of the basics like crime, the homeless problem, Muni, ADA lawsuits, the Jack in the Box’s hours, banning big box stores, etc.
Vote this guy out! He’s out of touch with the realities of living in the Richmond. Writing legislation and non binding resolutions is a waste of time. Eat some more late night fast food Mr.Happy Meal.
The truck was an eyesore and did not fit in our neighborhood. Thank you Supervisor Mar for getting rid of it. If you and your neighbors have a problem, reach out to Supervisor Mar so he can work with you on the issue.
As a parent I agree it was an eyesore and as someone who owns a food truck, I know that we need to find appropriate places to store our vehicles. My son saw the truck and pointed it out to me. He found the comment about the “3 ugly ones” odd but just smirked.
Like others have mentioned…Mar takes care of what he wants…..my neighbors along Fulton…I agree with you about the trailers and it only gets worse during Hardly Strictly Bluegrass, Outside Lands and the Bay to Breakers. I complain weekly about a truck which parks in front of a church blocking the street light and no turn on red sign and I get nowhere.
Micro-laws like the one proposed brought us the venerable “thou shall not eat an orange in the bathtub” California law that’s still on books. Ridiculous. Glad this was solved in a more sane way.
As for the truck, I have a problem with large advertisements for *anything*, and commercial vehicles hogging the increasingly rare parking spots in the Richmond District.in general… but that’s it. Yep, I saw this truck in action in downtown San Francisco, and I thought “What a brilliant idea!” Frankly, it looked more fun that the party buses full of screaming, throwing-up-drunk yuppies cruising the town.
Parking by a library or a school was in poor taste. Still, are we *that* afraid of bikini clad female bodies? You see much more on Youtube. I’m more concerned with the lack of good teachers and the graphic violence, virtual and otherwise, our kids are exposed to every day.
It’s pretty significant that almost every complaint from a parent focused not on any possible permanent damage seeing a semi-nekkid body could have caused their child, but on their own discomfort of “being forced” to talk to them about anything resembling, *gasp*, sex. Well, if you don’t, your kids will google it on their own. Kids are naturally curious about everything, and especially the adult life that’s ahead of them. An age appropriate answer is always the best policy. Keeping them ignorant… oops – “innocent” – will only hurt them down the line when they have to deal with realities unarmed by reliable information.
[sheepishly stepping off the soapbox]
@Sylvia, thanks for putting words to what I was also trying to formulate in my head. I too was noticing that it was parents that were uncomfortable, not their kids.
A parentâs job is to prepare their child for the rest of their life. None of us can entirely control the real world. So pretending that we can hide our child inside a bubble for 18 years (or even 5) is silly. Any attempt to do so just deprives the child of opportunities to learn and grow, then leaves them vulnerable when they finally escape their parents prison/bubble.
As difficult as it may be, we should be prepared to give age-appropriate answers to a childâs questions. We should not try to prevent the questions by putting a bag over their heads, nor making futile attempts to sanitize everything around us.
A possible response to a childâs question about things like this van: âSome people like to watch pretty ladies dance. Some people donât.â Thatâs probably the end of it. On the other hand, saying something like âThose ladies are badâ just invites more questions and curiosity.
The truck doesn’t bother me at all. Actually my boyfriend and I get a kick out of it because it is so out of place! The truth is, our culture is saturated with over-sexualized images and messages. If you’re worried about your kids’ reactions, take it as an opportunity to teach them. My niece has very strong reactions when she sees magazine covers with similar images in the grocery store. She tells me they’re silly and she thinks her mom is prettier (smart girl, huh?). They will be exposed to similar images one time or another, there is no use in sheltering them. We’re lucky to live in such a beautiful and family friendly neighborhood, but isn’t it a violation of Freedom of Speech to censor this? A truck is a truck, who cares?