NOTE: All timestamps are in the future because WE are in the future. The care takers of Midnight Ridazz.com reserves the right to remove, edit, move or delete anything for any reason. None of the opinions expressed on these boards represent the Midnight Ridazz nor can anyone purport to speak on behalf of Midnight Ridazz.
Thread started by Aktive_420 at 09.28.10 - 6:44 am
so who wants to see how to have an online discussion?... down to handle that ?
also who is down to meet ?
who wants to be involved for the next mass?
we always need and want YOU to discuss this, after all this is your ride!
lets keep up the good work of looking after ourselves, so that eventually LAPD doesnt have to babysit us at all...
they're main concerns really are:
1) dont cross the double yellow line into oncoming traffic.
2) dont cork...
if we watch ourselves with those two major issues, LAPD will leave us alone...
if we get a parade permeit, they are willing to scale back the number of cops from like 100 to 20,, obviously those numbers arent precise, but its an example....
- Pershing Square or multiple start points. Try to intersect each other during the rides.
- Implement stopping at all reds. If this gets rid of riders then so be it. Demonstrating that bikes follow road rules is more effective even if it slows the ride. The point of Critical Mass is demonstration of cyclists rights not, "Zoom Wheee!"
- Agree upon a destination. If people lose the ride they will know where to end up.
- I stand AGAINST parade permits for bike rides. It is just a tactic that will kill all group rides completely.
- Let's try to actually follow all the rules and see if the cops will actually GO AWAY.
- I think more people should volunteer to be involved to help out Critical Mass.
- I'm interested in attending future meetings. Due to my schedule I sometimes miss some critical mass rides, but I am still interested in being involved.
Ive been really impressed at google moderator as an open way of organizing questions and topics.
For the record,
I am 1000% against:
permits
routes
"leaders"
hierarchy
I am all for safety & respect for our fellow citizens and I do not at all think that the essential structure of critical mass prevents this from happening.
The limitations imposed by Critical Mass' traditional structure are greatly outweighed by what they provide, in terms of being a direct action that is nearly impossible to stop or co-opt.
I am all for creating something different that can capture the attention of the people and get more people riding and make cycling more palatable to the masses. We have several great examples ----------->
on any given day.
I am only opposed to changing the fundamental structure of the ride and call it a "critical mass"
"Critical Mass differs from many other social movements in its rhizomal (rather than hierarchical) structure. Critical Mass is sometimes called an "organized coincidence", with no leadership or membership. The routes of some rides are decided spontaneously by whoever is currently at the front of the ride, while others are decided prior to the ride by a popular vote of suggested routes often drawn up on photocopied flyers. The term xerocracy was coined to describe a process by which the route for a Critical Mass can be decided: anyone who has an opinion makes their own map and distributes it to the cyclists participating in the Mass. Still other rides decide the route by consensus. The "disorganized" nature of the event allows it to largely escape clampdown by authorities who may view the rides as forms of parades or organized protest. Additionally, the movement is free from the structural costs associated with a centralized, hierarchical organization. In order for the event to function, the only requirement is a sufficient turn-out to create a "critical mass" of riders dense enough to occupy a piece of road to the exclusion of drivers of motorized vehicles. Authorities in New York, California and Oregon have expressed concern with the difficulty of coordinating with the riders, due to the lack of leadership."
I like the idea of agreeing on a destination, even if the route is up in the air. It doesn't suck that bad to get separated, it's still fun to ride around; but it's funner to stay with the mass.
The cops will never leave CM alone, as long as it's so big. But if we follow the rules they won't harass us, and they will just be there to protect us from jackass drivers, which actually would be awesome. I don't want the police looking over our shoulders on other [smaller] rides, but specifically for Critical Mass it kind of makes sense.
I wrote up a devil's advocate argument for parade permits, then realized that parades are not traffic. So screw parade permits.
I don't see how agreeing upon a destination and following all road rules (stopping at reds) is changing the fundamental structure of Critical Mass.
I see resistance on this level to be futile.
However, I do oppose the need of requiring a permit for critical mass.
Can you
How does a meeting of minds effect the rides nature negatively from a zerocratic process? How can we ignore the need to represent some structure if the authorities are constantly supervising us?
I say we give them what we have. A few eager people who are willing to represent an ethic to follow and show that we are making attempts to influence the riders to adopt all road rules. The fundamental nature of the ride is not compromised until we are forced to have a permit. Agreed?
Joe Borfo responding to a comment by trickmilla
09.28.10 - 11:27 am
YOU DO NOT NEED A PARADE PERMIT. You only need a permit if you want to have a closed course and corked intersections. "You are traffic" and traffic does not require a permit. Traffic requires that you follow the same rules that all traffic must follow.
You (collectively) must determine what kind of ride you want to have. If it involves a non fragmented Mass that goes through red lights and stays together than you are a parade and not traffic.
If being broken up by traffic lights and the confussion of inconsistant corking is acceptable than carry on.
Either way the LAPD will make every effort to support you.
A good distinction to make here is that having a route and having a destination are different things.
If we start at Point A and everyone knows to end up at Point B, we still have total freedom to take any route from one point to the other.
When I get separated from the ride, I like to know where I can find everyone again.
The way I see it, with the police on our case about running reds, we either need to do tons of regroups, allow the ride to fracture and shrink, or tell people where to meet up later so it doesn't matter that the ride is fractured.
Maybe offer a time to meet at Point B as well, so that if a group is nearing Point B and it's too early, they can keep riding, loop around, etc.
I'm just thinking out loud, not necessarily making suggestions.
I think one thing we are trying to do is make this event as palatable to the LAPD as we can without compromising the fundamental spirit of Critical Mass.
In other words, we want our freedom and disorganization but we also don't want things to get out of control or to the point that LAPD eventually decides that we do need a permit, as you may know happened in New York.
We know that we don't need a permit to have this ride, but I for one want to ensure that LAPD and the city are comfortable enough with us not to decide otherwise in the future.
outerspace responding to a comment by Sgt. David Krumer
09.28.10 - 12:11 pm
You can't stop sprinters and fixie kids from racing ahead of any ride. But if we know the destination, we can let them sprint off and it's their problem, not ours.
The mass rides on at its own pace, on its own route, and gets to the destination when it gets there, how it gets there.
I don't believe a lot of tickets were handed out though.
Even the lapd said that 90% of the riders behaved so we have 10% less but then again these fools will come back for more I assure you LOL.
@outerspace Thinking is good. Keep it up. An all city CM is a vision I share and I hope others can adopt. The need for following the rules must be continually pushed for CM.
@Krumer I'm just pointing out to my peers that a requirement for permit is what has killed CM in Oregon, it is also currently stifling CM in NY. I know that may not be your intention. You have shown that you are supportive and have been a benefit to us. I thank you for that. I just feel the need to express my views on permits for bike rides are not what we want.
Joe Borfo responding to a comment by outerspace
09.28.10 - 12:25 pm
Agreed convergence points: Yes!
Meeting of the minds: Yes!
Following road rules: Yes!
Community Leadership: Yes!
Actually this works well. If you follow the rules of the road and have an agreed upon convergence point than it will not matter if the ride gets splintered as you can always regroup. In practice though I think that physics (a body in motion will remain in motion) and the fear of being run over by other cyclists will prevent people from stopping at reds...bringing us full circle to the corking debate and whether this is a parade or a ride and how many resources are needed to block intersections.
"@Krumer I'm just pointing out to my peers that a requirement for permit is what has killed CM in Oregon, it is also currently stifling CM in NY."
Someone inquired about the permit process and I provided info on it...a permit is not needed or being requested if the ride behaves as traffic (which you repeatedly advocate for). We are on the same page.
I do like the idea of a pre determined destination, especially if we are trying out civil obedience, the ride will get broken up and it will be good for everyone to know where we are going. Plus, with over a 1000 people it will be good to find a place with adequate space
I think a good first step is finding a new meet spot. I say maybe we compile a list of 4 or 5 good locations, start a thread and let people vote on it. Also reach out to other sites and blogs to add in their point of view also?
It may sound silly.
But we could also use a system of randomization for determining meet-up, convergences or destinations.
It doesn't matter what the random system is it could be decided at an open meeting.
An example would be if the price of a Barrel of Oil is UP and an Odd Number we might head to convergence point the North East of the city.
If the price is down and an even number we might head to the South West...
This is just an example, it would be easy to formulate a system of random variables that could pre-determine whatever it is the Mass Needs to decided.
A random variable would take decision making away from assertive individuals and leave primary decisions up to chance.
This would make for some variety in the ride, and make for an easy pre-determined way to choose destinations, that many people would know (and could spread by word of mouth) an advance of the ride.
I don't think it takes many tickets for the kids to get the message.
Project civil obedience would be the best solution. 2000 people splintered up by the lights into 20 autonomous groups of 100 or 50 groups of 40, all choosing their own route to an agreed upon destination. How fun it would be to roam about and happen upon other groups as the 40-50 seperate masses twist and turn riding legal. This will satisfy the LAPD and the drivers, and it can't be shut down because it is not a parade. Call it a huge game of hide and go seek.
I think the only ride that could truly pull this off is crank mob but it sure would be nice to see it happen with LACM
Roadblock responding to a comment by Ninja biker
09.28.10 - 1:19 pm
This idea also gets riders more exposure because the ride is in more places at once. And there is nothing stopping the mass from staying pretty close together if more people want to stay together in a huge group. Knowing the destination frees you up to do so much more.
Sure, you would lose some of the randomness, but in a way you gain way more randomness.
Wow, everyone seems to be on the same page with this!
To continue the start-point discussion: here's another vote in favor of considering alternatives to the current site. Change is good.
A good start point would ideally have the following attributes:
1. Close to a Metro
2. Large enough for folks to gather, but not too large that it causes folks to be too spread out.
3. Minimal fencing/gates--to allow easy ingress/egress.
4. Dirt/grass during wet/rain events could be problematic.
5. Public property--so the landowner/tenants don't shut it down or re-develop it.
Multiple start points throughout the city has many beneficial aspects--and would enable riders from different parts of the city to join in. There is already something like that in place and it's discussed on the ride posting, it's just on the informal side.
Trickmilla's example is a cool way to think about it--but I've got to admit, it took me a few times to read and digest it's brilliance. Therein might lie the problem with a somewhat randomized start point--if it's too confusing it will be hard to convey to people; if it's hard to convey to people, it'll be hard for people to grasp; if it's hard to grasp, they may be more than likely to just say "ah, forget it." It's been very easy for that past few years to just say: "Wilshire Western Metro stop, 7 pm"--and the growth of the ride has probably reflected that simplicity. Unless folks want to drastically shrink the ride (which I don't think folks want), the start point and/or formula has to be simple.
Who's down to help organize project civil obedience for the next LACM? Choose a destination. 2000 people Get there any route they want. Ride legal at all times. Play hide and go seek with 40 groups of 50.
Given the fact that there are 1000+ cyclists, I say LACM should be split up into 4 different legs (mini LACMs') and make there own route of an average 8-10 miles to a destination rest point to meet ALL of LACM.
It gives a chance for the late people to catch up, gives cyclists an option on choosing which LEG to follow, has LA more aware of cyclists, and keeps Law Enforcement at ease from such a big group.
Good point. Do women actually use public restrooms though? If they're anything like mens', I wouldn't.
Perhaps that suggests the start should be near-ish a store of some sort (with cleaner-than-public-restrooms). I'm neutral on the store thing for people to stock up on munchies, water, etc. (as I travel with all my goods on my back or panniers), but realize that a lot of people might like that.
What about multiple start points, not randomized, all within a couple miles of each other, and the groups from all start points head to the first destination (central to all start points) so they all arrive at the same time?
The advantage of this would be that you can have small manageable groups gather near Metro stops and come together at the "real" start point (the first stop, close by) which could be a much larger space than you can find near a Metro station, but wouldn't need to be immediately near a Metro station.
I dunno, might be too complicated, still thinking out loud...
outerspace responding to a comment by dudeonabike
09.28.10 - 2:16 pm
I'd just like to say I'm with Sgt. David Krumer in not interfering with your group ride here. In regards to trying to secure a new starting spot, I can see what we can do in getting Pershing Square for your starting point. I personally think it's a great location. They've installed over .5 million dollars in new surveillance equipment, plus there's intersection cameras for the area. Something to think about in creating a safe environment for your female bicycle riders.
All positive steps = thumbs up. Eventually I hope LAPD will lower the officer amount anyways..but I understand that will come after the Mass has proven it can police itself.
1. Not everyone at LACM is from the area or knows the street layout in the areas we ride in. I've had people tell me they've gotten lost when separated from the group. Part of the reason why LACM has so many riders is because it's pretty newbie-friendly. Splitting up into mini-masses and riding different routes might be fun for experienced riders or those riding with a group of people but I think it could be chaotic and confusing for newbies or those who are going to the ride alone.
2. If we select a new start location: no matter how much outreach we do via the web, there will almost certainly be several hundred people who are going to show up at Wilshire/Western. The majority of LACM riders probably do not read MR or the other bike forums. Sgt. Krumer has indicated that those that show up at the old location could face much more police scrutiny. I'm worried that this might just be a tactic to separate the group and allow the police to crackdown on those that show up at the old location. If we do select a new start point then I think we absolutely must route the ride to converge with whoever shows up at Wilshire/Western.
1. The cool thing about riding a bike in L.A. is that you get to know the areas you ride in. Get a map or other navigational aid. Even some phones have GPS now. If you're really lost you can be old skool and ask someone. If I did ride a bike and get lost I would never know about Chatsworth. I will never forget the time when I was lost and I looked up and saw the Nickerson Garderns projects. My point is, getting lost isn't the end of the world. You might actually learn something and lose your n00b status. If LACM rolls to some place that you aren't familiar with just ask someone where you are! If the LAPD wants the ride split up I think that's the way it's going to be.
2. Tell your friends where the new spot is in person. You have to give people some credit man. Studies have shown that even bacteria can follow instructions. LACM has outgrown its current meeting spot and that's awesome. I hope the cops would crackdown on the people who show up to the old spot or don't somehow find the ride for being too lame to figure it out (hipsters).
3. I would really like to see LACM go where it is most effective and meaningful for both the participants and spectators. I'd like to see the ride go to South L,A, Inglewood, East L.A., Marina Del Rey, Leimert Park, Hawthorne, and LAX (area) at some point.
Would be nice to have everybody meet Wilshire / Western and when it's time to roll out, cyclists don't just go one direction but go all directions. North South East West on Wilshire and Western. (Hence mini LACMs' that go there own route to the next rest destination point).
Also would be nice if people didn't type so much on here so I have to read arot.
Wow, was not expecting a discussion of women's peeing habits to be on this thread. But just to clear something up: yes, women use public restrooms. They are infinitely better than shrubbery.
Please change it for the better. It was just and idea to hopefully spark something even better. Besides, It died before it even had a chance three months ago.
On another note, a quote from LA Streets Blog Article comment about LACM issues with LAPD - "Just a naive question from some European guy:
What's the purpose of handcuffing cyclists? I guess they can't put them in jail for running a red light. So what happens to these cyclists? Do they let them go after a while (and continue riding)? Or do they take them to the station?
Here in Vienna/Austria there aren't really any problems with the police (and there is a criticalmass with several hundreds of riders each month). The worst that happened was that once (on one of the first rides years ago) some tickets were issued for amounts of some tens of Euros, these tickets were then retracted some months later.
But now the cooperation with the police is really good. There's usually one single police car at the end of the criticalmass, taking care that no cars are overtaking us, and some police guys riding on biycles within the criticalmass (and helping with the corking)."
Joe Borfo responding to a comment by trickmilla
09.29.10 - 1:17 am
i agree with the concept and also the name for the mere fact that we indeed have to be obedient in order to continue unmolested by police. although i think they are here to stay.
In short:
Agreed convergence points: Yes!
Meeting of the minds: Yes!
Following road rules: Yes!
Community Leadership: Yes!
Leaders: NO
Route: NO
Permit: NO
Government Sanctioning: NO
trickmilla
09.28.10 - 2:56 pm
i can dig this.
coldcut responding to a comment by trickmilla
09.29.10 - 1:23 am
Obviously I don't think it's possible to guarantee that no one gets lost. My greater concern is really that breaking up the ride will make it less inclusive. Beyond the possibility of getting lost, riders will also have to deal with more traffic and cars (which can be pretty hectic even after 7:30) if they're riding in smaller groups. My gut tells me that it will push away newbie and casual riders and encourage more of the "testosterone brigade" (cliques of males in their teens/twenties who are all about aggressive riding) to come out. I understand I'm probably in the minority on this point though since a lot of people seem to be in favor of breaking up the ride. Oh well, chances are I'll still show up to check it out.
And I do plan on telling my friends about any new starting place. That's common sense. But as I said in the other thread: there are people who show up to the ride who don't read any bike websites and who might not necessarily know that many other riders. Those people shouldn't face a crackdown from the cops just because the information didn't reach them.
Hallucin8 responding to a comment by Velocipede
09.29.10 - 2:03 am
You indicated that "If the LAPD wants the ride split up I think that's the way it's going to be."
The LAPD has stated that without a route and absent a completely corked ride, the Mass will be split as a function of stopping at the reds. There are clearly differerent camps. The "we are traffic" camp actually desires a split Mass as it increases the Mass footprint and reinforces the message that cyclists belong in traffic and shoud thus follow its rules. There other faction prefers that the Mass resemble a rolling parade/"celebration" where everyone stays together and intersections are corked.
The LAPD does not "want" the ride split. Whether the ride is split will be determined by what cyclists want LACM to be.
I think one of the casualties of moving the ride start point is that people will show up to the original start. So there will have to be something at wilshire and western to let people know where the new start is. Maybe we can start from the new location at 8 instead of 730 for a month or two so people can make it to the real start. Or we could start early and ride by the wiltern to pick people up
With police corking major intersections and the pack stopping at the front to keep the ride together, the ride can and has successfully and safely gone through minor intersections without anyone corking.
The police feel that this is a threat to the rule of law however.
gregb responding to a comment by Sgt. David Krumer
09.29.10 - 10:39 am
@trickmilla.... i do not like or agree with the word obediance either...however, using another term or rebranding the ride, would it just a disguise for that word... I guess I find it that riders are being "trained" to ride properly and being informed about how to ride in the streets of Los Angeles, which in turn is good since it promotes safety and encourages new riders who may be timid to ride a bicycle in the streets of Los Angeles. I guess i would rather call it for what it is than attempting to masquerade and hide what is being accomplished.
leaders... i still do not get this part...or once again, as a group we are not willing to accept that this is happening or happens.... last CM had a ride leaders group meeting before the ride... this means there were leaders and the mass did not decide the route, speed, regroups, stops, or any other decision.
There is an initial leader since someone decides to start the ride...it seems that the default person is the person with a mega phone that people within 20 feet may be able to hear... Also, i noticed that police officers look for certain specific riders to initiate the start of the ride... perhaps because they have communication with officers and by default they become the leader in essence of the ride.... last CM, it was the same person or group in front right? not sure because i was in the back of the mass...
can an agreement be made about--- whether CM will have a destination in case ppl or groups separated by reds get split--- or no destination.... does a destination keep CM as a true CM?
if no destination, I like what buckin stated somewhat but maybe come up with a better system... like the last CM, there should be a bucket where ppl can submit there names and that name will be drawn up randomly.... that person gets the opportunity to lead the ride for about an hour where a stop is made and a new person or group is selecting to continue from there..... or allow those CM leaders by default to lead the ride but at the red light where it is stopped.... someone else or group gets to lead the ride...someone that does not have any relations with the initial leader or group....
overall, the last ride was really slow and some streets were poorly selected (too narrow for the group size)...however, i would be able to invite new riders to this type of CM because it was more opening to new riders... it may have been disappointing to riders that wanted to go fast but there are alternative rides for that type of riding.... I think we may see less of certain riders but more of other type of riders.... which is good and bad....
dayone responding to a comment by trickmilla
09.29.10 - 10:56 am
As Sgt Krumer has pointed out before, saying CM is leaderless isnt true, we all know the same people dictate where the ride goes every month. I like dayones idea of people submitting their names and then picking someone randomly to lead. That way there is still some spontaneity
buckchin responding to a comment by dayone
09.29.10 - 11:22 am
The reason I didn't say anything when you proposed it originally, it that the idea itself is really solid, i didn't want to get caught up in debating minutiae.
The reason the C.O. style ride didn't happen that time out, among other challenges, did not work because the police were corking for us at pretty much every intersection.
A "better" name won't be easy to come by, but I do think a slight rebranding of this concept will go a long way to help to get the idea across.
To be fair.
Part of what we experienced at the last ride was police waiting at opposing intersections where the mass was going through reds.
The officers waited until there was a pause in the mass, then entered the intersection, crossing the mass, influencing them to stop at the light and hence "breaking up the ride".
I saw this happen multiple times, it was very deliberate strategy.
Every time I saw it, it was done safely ... and to be honest I thought it was a pretty elegant way to influence the flow of traffic with out rolling people and giving out tickets.
You may be able to say that LAPD does not "want" to split up the ride if LAPD would prefer that we seek a permit and have a sanctioned ride with full LAPD support.
But whether or not LAPD "wants" to split up the ride, what we experienced appears to have been an organized and concerted effort to split up the ride by LAPD.
Maybe its not what LAPD wanted to do, but they did it.
trickmilla responding to a comment by Sgt. David Krumer
09.29.10 - 1:41 pm
Excellent observation trickmilla...the reason for project CO not working was due to the LAPD corking...now with a few CM under our belt and the LAPD moving away from corking (unless a route is provided) than it may be time to give it another shot. This time around I think the LAPD will not undermine the concept.
In fact I think that on the last ride we had the beginnings of a project CO in that there were less double yellow violations, there were large numbers of folks stopping for uncorked reds, and there was excellent self-policing spearheaded by Eastside Bicycle Club, MOM riders, Alex Thompson, Roadblock and so many others.
Take a look at the CM page on wikipedia. There is a difference between a hierarchical "leader" and stewards of the ride who offer "leadership" or have influence, it is an important distinction.
As far as the word obedience.
it is really not what we are advocating for.
I know I can speak for myself, borfo, roadblock, and many other people when I say that we are currently trying to seize an opportunity to make LACM a safer, friendlier ride.
Our motivations have nothing to do with wanting people to "obey" laws, "obey" authorities, or "obey" cars or car culture.
What we would like to see is more respect.
Many of us love this city and the people in it.
We want to respect the communities we ride through, and inspire the people we come across to see how fun it is to ride a bike in LA.
I don't give a fuck if people "obey" the law, but I do want people i ride with to respect the people we share this city with.
As convoluted as the management of CM and other group rides are becoming in light of this thread, I was becoming a bit alarmed by the sensation of "Oh no, what am I gonna do on nights off now?"
But, then I came to further realization that the attic addition was just added and I've got several boxes and hard-drives full of goodies.
So, I'm now in good hands in the event the rides I've come to love ever get ridden completely into the ground.
Agreed convergence points: Yes!
Meeting of the minds: Yes!
Following road rules: Yes!
Community Leadership: Yes!
Leaders: NO
Route: NO
Permit: NO
Government Sanctioning: NO
Let's just cross our fingers that this stays unique to Critical Mass and doesn't become the norm for every large group ride.
Hate to bring up "that other large ride", but responses in that thread strongly suggested the same thing.
Some rides need leadership, others seem to do just fine gliding to hell in a hand-basket.
- I'd like to propose Pershing Square as a new start Location. Sgt. Krumer said he could help us work out any kinks with the security there. In any case I think we need a larger space to accommodate the ride start and Pershing Square has been suggested by a lot of people. If people are not opposed to the idea, perhaps we could converge from both locations to a certain destination. I would not mind being part of the force that starts it from Pershing Square. (We'd just need Krumer's support that we don't get harassed by the security which was the concern)
- I'll suggest Macarthur park as a destination. Any other Ideas?
- It would be fun if people promoted ZOMBIE attire for this Critical Mass because it will be on the 29th... All we need is a jug of fake blood for people who are willing to get painted at the ride start and as it grows!
- I think a flyer or spoke card promoting more RESPECT on CM to be beneficial. Spoke cards are a lot of work, but less wasteful as people will save them and want them more. You guys did an awesome job on last months spoke cards!
- I think if a group of us encouraged some open dialog before the ride, I have a megaphone to lend. I got the day cleared so I can definitely make it this month. Communication and the sharing of ideas is the best way to improve and educate each other for the betterment of this event.
- blaze on!
LA ZOMBIE CRITICAL MASS !
Joe Borfo responding to a comment by Aktive_420
10.2.10 - 8:52 am
I also wanted to promote the more traditional Critical Mass start time of 5:30pm just like in SF. http://critical-mass.info/howto/
The Pershing Square Start could Meet at 5:30 and ride out by 6:00 and head towards Wilshire and Western and get there by the time you guys normally take off now.
I just think that we can move critical mass back to it's roots and encourage more safety at the same time.
Pershing Square may be a bit tough this month because they have a film screening every friday in October. Also, if you decide to move it may not be a bad idea to meet at Wilshire/Western and advise folks there that the following months LACM will be at whatever locations is decided upon (if a move is decided upon at all).
When I got there last month there were people constantly rolling up and standing right on wilshire blvd. There was a cop there the whole time telling people to get off the street. But there was really no space on the side walk for them to go.
buckchin responding to a comment by Roadblock
10.2.10 - 8:14 pm
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
so who wants to see how to have an online discussion?... down to handle that ?
