May 21 at the San Francisco Planning Commission saw Maxine and Starchild speak out against
the currently proposed massage ordinance that would limit hours of operation, make more heavy penalties, require more massage businesses to go through the planning commission to receive a conditional use permit. The usual opposition was there.
You might be able to see the vidoe recording on the
It would be at the Planning Commission May 21, 2009. I also read this opposition at the Small Business Commission last week as they will be hearing it on June 1st.

Here is the letter I read and wrote to the city opposing this bad legislation.

Monday May 12, 2009
To San Francisco Planning Commission.

Re: 090402 [Zoning – New Controls for Massage Establishments] and 090403, [Penalties for violation of Massage Practitioner Licensing and Regulation Ordinance]

I oppose this latest round of proposed zoning and penalties on the massage businesses.

My concern is the continued over regulation of the massage industry and how it has negatively impacted massage parlor workers and independent masseuses. These kinds of over regulations of the massage businesses has created unsafe work conditions for massage workers.

I’m sighting the recent killing of a woman who advertised as a masseuse on while providing her services at a hotel in Boston. She was targeted for violence for her independent worker status. Many workers decide not to work in the over regulated massage establishments because of the limitation pertaining to permitting/location/hours of operation and penalties. These conditions have created inhuman work conditions that have negatively impacted the workers ability to practice our trade as well gain equal protection under the law. Massage parlor workers as well as independent masseuses sometimes do not report crimes against ua because we are afraid that these cases of violence will be used by city department administrators to preclude operating legal businesses.

Heavy penalties and zoning restrictions have done nothing to stop massage operators. We know from Fiona Ma’s anti massage legislation of 2006 which required a public hearing and conditional use permit for massage businesses has had the effect of forcing business to operate under ground with no licensing or permitting at all. We need to have an impact study on the effects of these anti massage parlor legislations to assess if they have met their goal of reducing forced labor in the Asian massage parlor industry and if they haven’t we ought to repeal these bad laws which have only served to disenfranchising a whole group of workers.

Carmen Chu doesn’t represent my position on massaged, She doesn’t represent the massage industry. Carmen Chu says she is ‘representing neighbors and proprietors of legitimate businesses who are fed up with these brothels tarnishing their reputations’. If a business has sustained damages by another they have civil avenues to recoup alleged damages. TV and print media reports reveal Carmen Chu’s real motives which are to racially profile Asian massage parlor owners’ businesses to make it harder for them to operate in a legal way. Carmen Chu’s anti massage legislation will have the same negative result as Fiona Ma’s anti massage legislation, bad for all workers.

Maxine Doogan
Erotic Service Providerspassed-version-Massge-09