Dear Editor:

I read Rob DeKoven’s column with a great deal of interest and applaud him for bringing attention to the important subject of bathhouses in San Diego. If the county Board of Supervisors is really considering closing them, my question is: What took them so long?!

In the 1980s, then-mayor Dianne Feinstein made the right call during the height of the AIDS epidemic in San Francisco. Sadly, dry-bath sex clubs sprang up to replace the bathhouses where unsafe sex and drugs deals continue to proliferate.

Men who are going to buy, sell and do illegal drugs and have unsafe sex will continue to do so wherever the opportunity presents itself. But why make it easier for them to carry out these practices by providing the shelter of bathhouses in which to do so?

And come on, do any of us really believe the owners and employees of the bathhouses do not really know this continues to happen every day since they first opened the doors to their “clubs”? How difficult can it be for the police and health department to investigate and see and learn for themselves that the members of these clubs are destroying their lives and the lives of others?

Attendants handing out condoms with towels and holding the occasional safe-sex meeting is simply a ruse to make these actions palatable to the gay community while fending off the authorities.

I am not advocating a “big brother” approach to government or suggesting we impinge on anyone’s right to privacy, but selling, obtaining and using illegal drugs – even in private clubs – is still against the law as well as dangerous to both the user and their bathhouse partner(s).

The old argument that closing the baths will only send these guys back into the parks and alleys is tired. If it is true, perhaps the police will have a better chance at catching them and getting them off the street for counseling, assistance or jail time.

These questions and comments deserve the attention and consideration of city and county officials with support from our community leaders.

Lee A. Schoenbart

Dear Editor:

RE: San Diego man found guilty of oral copulation with a minor.

I really had no idea that the Gay and Lesbian Times used “news reporting” as a showcase for individual character assassination. If you want to report the news to our community, give us the whole story, don’t mislead us towards disparage, and don’t insult our intelligence. For sure we know his name, since you mention it almost twenty times in a half page article, and I know Bret personally. I was in the courtroom during his trial, and because of this fact I clearly see the attempt, through the mouth of Deputy D.A. Pat Espinoza, at character assassination. Besides, it would make much more attention-grabbing reading if you knew more of the facts of the case. Firstly, there was no corroboration with the accuser’s statements, and the blanket statements made about Bret’s body besides being absurd, are completely explicable. There was no testimony from anyone agreeing with the accuser’s story. No one came forward with any similar accusations, and no other past accusations against Bret exist. The people who did come forward told us that “Alex” approached them and asked them to lie and participate in an attempt at extortion, and that he was bragging specifically about Bret’s car that would soon be his. Also, not mentioning the poorer situations of his life, the accuser has also alleged sexual mistreatment by other individuals, including multiple members of his own family. He was known to be troubled and to manipulate, and most importantly to lie. The D.A. also mentioned the difficulty in prosecuting a case like this, without the accuser present, but what about the difficulty in defending this case? You can not ask questions and seek out the truth in testimony when the person is not there. And in light of recent prolific media attention on scandals surrounding Catholic priests, and Michael Jackson I would think that having the accuser present would be essential in protecting everyone’s rights. In the United States we have this basic mandate that Bret was denied. This was not to protect the witness, but because his accuser was simply “unavailable?” I don’t buy it. His mother refused to bring him to court, and neither the D.A. nor the judge pursed the issue of his presence, which should have been in the interest of fair procedure and justice. I think that if his testimony might have helped her son’s case that she would have brought him in immediately? If this were my kid, I would have most certainly. So, I encourage you to take a closer look at this case, and do some real reporting.

Nicholas Perez