Skip to comments.Porn film company buys historic 1912 armory (WARNING: Gag Alert)
Posted on 01/15/2007 8:43:47 AM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
A company that makes and distributes bondage and other pornographic films has purchased an old brick armory that was once used as a military induction and training center during the two world wars.
The Moorish-style brick building in San Francisco's Mission District was recently purchased for $14.5 million by Kink, a Web-based pornography distributor that outgrew its South of Market dungeon.
Built in 1912, the armory is listed on the National Register of Historic Places but has been empty since 1970. In recent years, plans to build apartments, offices and an Internet switching facility never got off the ground.
Kink's movie directors see the real, ready-made dungeon as just the thing for filming bondage movies.
In the boiler room, porn director James Mogul said, the possibilities are endless.
"You could put a girl right inside the boiler," he said. "Why not? It's a nice little chamber. You wouldn't have to change anything.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
You'd think that the law would prevent any building on the National Register from being used for immoral purposes. But that would require judging what's moral and immoral.
San Francicso values.
Wouldn't that prevent Congress from being in session?
In more ways than one.
Dang! You beat me to it! A nice double-entendre to be sure.
A brick building? The next moderate-to-severe earthquake will flatten it, unless it's been extensively updated.
The real beatings and torture will be unleashed on our 401Ks.
Well! Their customers will probably get whipped up about it.
The fact that "Kink" has $14.5 million to spend on a brick building is, I believe, the most disturbing part of this article.
Damn. I'm really in the wrong line of work.
Wonder how much money Kink donates to Democrats.
I doubt it'll fall down, although you can always hope
that the wrath of God falls upon those pervy pornstars.
It's a brick building that was built 6 years after the
1906 earthquake, and that has already survived the severe
1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (6.9 on the moment magnitude
scale, 7.1 surface-wave magnitude). It's literally built
like a shick brithouse.
Um, shouldn't that read 'armoury'?
I won't post links to them for fear of being banned from FR.
Although I have to admit, I'm surprised that they can afford to drop $14+ mil on new digs.
That's some pretty serious cash [given that you can find almost all of their stuff for free at one rogue site or another].
Listing something on the the National Register of Historic Places does not put it in a trust. The National Register is grossly misunderstood since it does not prevent a private property owner from doing anything they want with their property.
If you own a National Register property, you can bulldoze it if you want to, the only thing that can be done to you as punishment (at the Federal level) is to remove your property from listing on the Register.
The National Register of Historic Places protects significant properties from GOVERNMENTAL actions. Local, State and Federal governments or private parties using Federal Funds are the ones who are restricted by a National Register listing and in even in those cases, there are many loopholes.
Why is porn-making not considered prostitution, legally-speaking? Money is exchanged for sex. What legal maneuvers and political donations do the pornmongers make?
They cloak it in the 1st Amendment...you know, the same one that separates church and state....< /sarcasm>
I pass this building nearly every day. It is HUGE and amazing and located in an area of astronomical property values. What is astounding to me is that it has sat unused since 1970. People think $14.5MM is a lot, but I wonder what that works out to be in 1970 dollars, compounded to today and taking into account taxes and maintenance. Whoever sat on that building and did nothing with it for 37 years was a fool.
How deep does that sarcasm run? It's funny because separation of church and state ain't there, rather it is non-establishment of religion.
I hope you were that subtle. Obscenity has never been protected by the first amendment.
If porn production really were protected by the first amendment, why haven't enterprising street pimps just tried to prove that they're running a porn film production and not a prostitution ring?
Thank you for explaining that.