Living
Castro catastrophe
‘We Were Here’ offers first-hand accounts of AIDS horrors in San Francisco
A vintage still from San Francisco's Castro neighborhood used in 'We Were Here.' (Photo courtesy of Film Collaborative)
There were angels in San Francisco.
But unlike in Tony Kushner’s two-part Pulitzer-Prize-winning play about AIDS — “Angels in America,” set in New York City in the mid-1980s — these angels were real people.
In the Kushner play, an angel descends to earth, as his fictional characters struggled with this unsettling new disease, the “gay cancer” as it was being called, an epidemic that seemed to spring from nowhere and then spread like a wicked wildfire.
In San Francisco it also struck like a bolt from the blue and purple unknown, its stigmata the purple-ish and dark reddish-blue marks of skin lesions — those herpes-like, cancerous tumors of Kaposi’s sarcoma — that began to dot faces and limbs and torsos with an ugliness that was unmistakable and the cause unknown. Right-wing televangelist Jerry Falwell called the lesions, which were seen as the defining illnesses of AIDS in the 1980s, to be the signs of Satan’s claim over sins of the flesh and God’s punishment for those same-sex sins, demons of a heaven-sent plague upon homosexuality.
“For a group of gay men, so into physical appearance, this was a disease whose very physical manifestations were horrifying,” says Daniel, one of the five people profiled in a new and deeply affecting documentary film, “We Were Here,” a gut-punch of a feature-length film by producer-director David Weissman, about the coming of AIDS to the Bay Area, and the human havoc it wrought.
This film is truly a moving picture. Co-presented with Reel Affirmations, as part of the 25th Annual FilmFest D.C. (now through April 17), it is playing tonight and Saturday night at the Regal Cinemas Gallery Place, on 7th Street, N.W., near Verizon Center. Each showing is at 6:30 p.m. followed by town meetings to discuss the film and its ramifications today in D.C. where the disease still flourishes.
Each one of the five in “We Were Here” is a witness, a survivor, and haunted in some indelible way by what they saw. Four of them are gay men (Daniel, Ed, Guy and Paul), who each contracted HIV yet somehow survived. One is a straight woman (Eileen) who ministered to the patients, as a nurse who cared about them as human beings, not clinical case studies.
Like Eileen, who appears to be a modern-day Florence Nightingale, each one is an angel, each able to say, “we were here.” Each is a survivor of the mysterious epidemic that moved through San Francisco in the 1980s with all the ferocity of an avenging angel, a grim reaper carrying off those who had sown such pleasure, but now so many of them faced death as a result.
Each is an eyewitness. At the skillful hand of filmmaker Weissman, who also earlier produced “The Cockettes,” a documentary about the campier side of the Bay Area, the testimony of the five is heartfelt and eloquent, bringing the kind of emotion that only those who experienced it first hand can bring.
Daniel’s voice is such an example. His voice is riveting, his gaze impossible to turn away from. He’s a modern-day Ancient Mariner come to tell us of how wrong things can get when bad things happen to good people.
He recalls that tragic time when no one could comprehend what was happening, as the virus burned its way through the carefree, almost heedless hedonism that came to the Bay Area after Stonewall in 1969, when hippies flocked to the Haight Ashbury and gays to the Castro. For a time all was well. But it was the sexual romp before the gathering storm.
Paul, who found his early calling in political action working with Harvey Milk, says, “I came to San Francisco with nothing but my backpack and my boyfriend.” He recalls that in the mid-1970s, “I believed that at that time in San Francisco there were nothing but crazy dreamers.”
Daniel went, recalling that, “I always wanted to meet a blond surfer but I was still in the closet, but then I came out with a bang,” in part spurred by being cast in the gay-themed play “The Boys in the Band.”
One observer, appearing in the film, puts it bluntly about that era: “If you took a lot of young gay men and asked them, ‘How much sex would you like to have?,’ the answer was, ‘A lot,’ and the sense was, sex is good, and more sex is good,” and after all, he adds, “We came to San Francisco to be gay.” Ed, who moved to the city in 1981, is equally blunt: “I was always in relationships, but they were open … My sexual outlet was always the bath houses and it was fun.”
But times were changing. In 1979, Harvey Milk was assassinated. In 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected president. The hopes and dreams of hippie hedonism didn’t last. But then, says Weissman, who documents it with clinical detail from archival footage, signs of trouble began to appear.
“People were wasting, losing so much weight, [San Francisco’s Castro neighborhood] looked like a concentration camp,” says Daniel. “You almost had to turn away, it was just too scary.” He felt haggard and haunted: “I was losing all the fat in my face and my butt — I would walk by a store window and jump, ‘Who was that?’ — I was skin and bones.”
At times death came with startling swiftness. Eileen, who chose to care for AIDS sufferers and then to work on clinical trials seeking pharmaceutical relief of the worst symptoms, says that in the hospital where she worked, “People were coming in with a KS lesion one day and were dead 10 days later.” Her own heart went out to them, but others shrank away in fear and ignorance, as some voices were raised calling for tattoos to be stenciled onto all persons diagnosed with HIV and some even called for packing them away into leper-like colonies.
“From the beginning,” she says, “I just couldn’t understand the homophobia that was going on and the fear of going into the [hospital] rooms.”
“There was nothing that unusual in that people are of course going to die,” says Ed, who speaks like a creative writer, a craft in which he earned a graduate degree. But in San Francisco, he says, “It’s just that it happened in a targeted community, to people who were disenfranchised, separated from their families.” But then a kind of miracle happened when people like Eileen stepped forward, as well as gay men who were not infected. In Ed’s words, “A whole different group of people stepped up and became their families.”
They got involved. Eileen joined ACT UP. Daniel fought his way back from depression and worked on the Names Project, which made the AIDS quilt.
Each of five was chosen, says Weissman, because they had a special story to tell, and the film delivers what they have to say with an emotional wallop. But more than that, he admits, “The city is also a character” in the film, which he calls “Very personal to me” and “a love letter to San Francisco,” where after some years living in Portland, Ore., he is now based. A commercial release is planned for later in the year.
Weissman, who is gay, was born in 1954 in Los Angeles, and never went to college, he explains, because he “lived through the hippie times.” He got into filmmaking in his late 20s. He says it was “something on the spur of the moment.” He took coursework at the City College of San Francisco, but says at first he never thought of himself as a documentarian. Instead, he produced a series of short comedies until finally, after “a moment of unexpected inspiration,” he made the 2001 acclaimed documentary, “The Cockettes,” about the Bay Area’s legendary theater troupe of hippies and drag queens.
“Some people worry that seeing a film like this will be a downer,” Weissman says. “But that’s definitely not the case. Instead, it’s a cathartic experience, healing and empowering.”
“Especially for young gay men today, who don’t know very much about our history,” Weissman says the film opens “a window about how we got where we are today, and the resilience our community has shown in the face of terrible adversity.”
Other gay-themed films slated for fest
The Washington, D.C. 25th annual international film festival event comes alive this week overflowing the Historic Lincoln Theatre on U Street, AMC Mazza Gallerie, Regal Gallery Place at Verizon Center on 7th Street N.W., the Landmark E Street Cinemas, the Avalon and other venues through April 17.
“We know for sure that people in D.C. are interested in films other than Hollywood films,” says Tony Gittens, who founded the festival in 1987.
Themes include “Justice Matters,” a cluster of films focusing on social justice issues; Global Rhythms, a special section of music films; Short Cuts, eight films less than feature length from around the world; and “Lunafest,” nearly 90 minutes of short films for, by and about women. Tickets for most films are $11, he says, and shows tend to sell out, so buying tickets online is the smart bet.
For a complete list of films and events, which include “freebies” for children and seniors, and to purchase tickets, visit filmfestdc.org or call 888-996-4774 from 10 a.m.-6 p.m. Monday through Friday and from noon-5 p.m. on weekends. Tickets may also be purchased at the theater on the day of the show, with the box office opening one hour before the venue’s first screening of the day.
In addition to “We Were Here,” three others have LGBT appeal:
“Circumstance” (“Sharayet”) in Persian with English subtitles 9 p.m. tonight and 6 p.m. Saturday at Regal Cinemas Gallery Place. Directed by Maryam Keshavasrz, this joint French-Iranian-USA production won this year’s Sundance Film Festival audience award. A young Iranian girl, still in her teens, Atafeh, and her best friend Shireen, experiment with mutual sexual attraction amid the subculture of Tehran’s underground art scene and face familial disapproval.
“For 80 Days” (“80 egunean”) in Spanish with English subtitles co-presented with the Embassy of Spain at 7:30 p.m. Sunday and 8:30 p.m. Monday at the Avalon Theatre, 5612 Connecticut Ave. N.W. Directed by Jon Garano and Jose Maria Goenaga, this Spanish entry depicts two women, one of them lesbian, who were best friends in youth, who meet again by accident 50 years later.
“Loose Cannons” (“Mine Vaganti”) in Italian with English subtitles screens at 9 p.m. tonight and 7 p.m. Saturday at AMC Mazza Gallery, 5300 Wisconsin Ave. N.W.
Directed by Ferzan Ozpetek, the films depicts a large, eccentric family whose patriarch puts pressure on the two sons, who are gay, to follow in the family business.
Ragtops rock! For drivers looking to carve their own lane, the world already has enough sensible crossovers, minivans, and pickups. These three convertibles trade practicality for sunshine, wind, and the occasional wild-hair day.
BMW Z4
$58,000
MPG: 25 city/33 highway
0 to 60 mph: 5.2 seconds
Trunk space: 10.0 cu. ft.
PROS: Strong engines. Uber comfy. Stylish.
CONS: Expensive. Final year of production.
Act fast, Bimmer fans, this is the last year the BMW Z4 roadster will be produced. Along with the entry-level xDrive30i and high-performing M40i, there is a Final Edition model.
Since 2002, the Z4 has expertly balanced performance, comfort, and style. The long hood and short rear deck still look fantastic. The stance is athletic. And with the top down, this car gains an extra dose of drama.
Under the hood, BMW offers turbo power that feels eager rather than overwhelming. Acceleration is brisk. The steering precise. The chassis composed.
Upgrading to the premium models lets you scoot from 0 to 60 mph in just 3.9 seconds. But—ka-ching!—the MSRP soars to $79,000.
Available in manual or automatic transmissions, this convertible can sprint through mountain roads on Saturday and soothingly devour highway miles on Sunday.
As for the interior, it blends luxury and functionality. Materials feel expensive. Controls are easy to use. And the seats are supportive.
For me, other ragtops may be more party hearty, but the Z4 is low-key, impeccably tailored and still the center of attention. Think suave James Bond versus sparkling RuPaul.
MAZDA MX-5 MIATA
$32,000
MPG: 26 city/35 highway
0 to 60 mph: 5.5 seconds
Trunk space: 5.0 cu. ft.
PROS: Nimble. Lightweight. Affordable.
CONS: So-so power. Wind noise. Limited space
For decades, the Mazda MX-5 Miata has followed a simple formula: Keep it light, keep it balanced and make every drive feel special. The result: Automotive comfort food that never gets old.
Many vehicles grow larger every year, but the Miata has remained Lilliputian in a way that feels rebellious. You sit low. The controls are user-friendly. Visibility is excellent.
No, the engine power won’t blow you away. But this beachcomber isn’t about brute force. It’s about how the Miata makes you feel wonderfully alive, whether tootling along city streets or a winding road.
Inside, the dashboard is sparse but echoes a traditional sports car. Large analog tachometer and analog speedometer. And while the 8.8-inch infotainment display is dinky, it works nicely.
Alas, storage is limited. The cabin is snug. And taller drivers may wish for a bit more room.
Yet somehow even those compromises feel almost charming. This ride knows exactly what it is and refuses to apologize. Sort of like showing up to Pride wearing what makes you happy rather than chasing trends.
MINI COOPER
$27,000
MPG: 28 city/39 highway
0 to 60 mph: 7.9 seconds
Trunk space: 5.2 cu. ft.
PROS: Playful styling. Fun handling. Extra stowage.
CONS: Ride can be firm. Not a speed demon.
Mini Coopers approach life with a wink and a grin. Rounded headlights. Compact dimensions. Cheerful styling. It all works to create a vehicle that looks like it’s having fun before you’ve even started the engine.
Driving this ragtop is equally entertaining. The steering is quick, and the chassis feels eager to please. Overall performance is lively rather than blistering.
The cabin leans heavily into Mini’s playful design language. Circular elements appear throughout. Details feel intentionally quirky. Many modern interiors seem created by committees that fear excitement. This cabin feels designed by someone who enjoys color, personality and perhaps spontaneous dance breaks.
Unlike the BMW Z4 and Mazda Miata, the Mini offers a small rear seat. “Small” is doing some heavy lifting there, but the extra space adds flexibility. It may not be enough room to comfortably squeeze in friends, but you can easily stow a few bags here.
To me, driving this convertible feels like attending the world’s friendliest block party. People notice it. People smile. Sometimes people even wave.
While one would hope it’s easy to calculate a break-even point for a home purchase – such as you could calculate for “how many widgets a month do I need to sell to break even?” It’s not always easy when looking at the return on investment for a home purchase. Condo buildings can lose a view due to new construction next door. Weather patterns can expose deficiencies. Conversely, new dining and entertainment options in a neighborhood can cause home prices to skyrocket. The addition of public transportation and employment options can make a neighborhood more desirable. Or, as we have recently seen in the District of Columbia – an incoming presidential administration can severely affect the “vibe” of an entire city’s economy – for better or for worse.
Homeownership is not necessarily a get rich quick scheme. Most homeowners find that staying in a house for at least 5-10 years – whether owner occupied or not, makes for a significant return on their investment. An owner may not completely pay off a home in 10 years, but they might gain enough equity that they can receive quite a large check when they decide to sell or move. And the old reasoning that “your apartment rental community does not cut you a sizeable check when moving out after 15 years.” still stands. Is homeownership for everyone? Absolutely not. But many have reported other benefits besides purely financial gains. What are those benefits?
- Feeling a sense of community. – homeowners tend to take more pride in their buildings and neighborhoods, because they feel more invested and tend to want to protect their investment. Neighborhood watch programs, getting to know elderly neighbors, forming building wide or cul-de-sac wide favorite TV show watch nights, super bowl parties, and other such communal and social ties lead to an overall sense of wellbeing and help to stabilize a nervous system in uncertain times.
- Feng Shui? Well, maybe there’s something to it. If you have been wanting to customize your own home but live in an apartment, there are many more restrictions on what you can do in a rental, than when you own your own home. Do you want new countertops? Would you love to remove that popcorn ceiling? Open up that kitchen? Convert the back yard into a curated patio/cold plunge/hot tub time machine cookout/spring break adventure campsite of your wildest dreams?
- Forming longer lasting relationships – sharing that CostCo membership with others on your floor, making a pan of lasagna and inviting the neighbors over for dinner, picking your neighbor’s brain for stock investment advice, asking your neighbor’s son to help you create a marketing plan for your new business, hosting the Friendsgiving you dreamed of – there are multitudes of reasons and ways that homeowners tend to feel a sense of community, sharing of resources, and realizing over time that “it takes a village.”
- Higher civic engagement – Studies have shown that homeowners tend to be more politically active in their districts, participate in local school boards, know the names of and how to contact their local representatives to affect change, etc. Having a higher financial investment in and a commitment to stay in a neighborhood beyond just one or two years makes a big difference in who decides to show up at election time, especially for local elections.
If you would like to know more about the research on homeownership, feel free to read the report from the National Association of Realtors here.
Joseph Hudson is a referral agent with RLAH. Reach him at 703-587-0597 or [email protected].
Real Estate
D.C.’s housing reality: Cautious optimism meets landlord strain
Cost of living remains a major problem
Washington has long prided itself on stability. Anchored by the federal government and buoyed by a highly educated workforce, the District has historically weathered economic uncertainty better than most cities.
But beneath that stability, cracks have been showing since January 2025.
I was having a conversation with a prospective client the other day and offered him a candid assessment of the District’s economic outlook. Simply put, structural challenges have been shaping the city’s future, a new mayoral election, and more that blends cautious optimism with clear concern about the changes ahead.
For one, the long-term shift toward remote and hybrid work continues to reshape the city in ways many people still underestimate. There has been a change in the rhythm of downtown D.C., reduced daytime foot traffic for local businesses, and created uncertainty for commercial real estate owners and the neighborhoods that depended on those workers every day.
At the same time, the cost of living in the District continues to rise at a pace that many residents are struggling to absorb. Even residents with strong incomes are becoming more cautious about spending and relocation decisions.
Landlords are feeling those pressures as well. Many smaller housing providers are operating in an environment where expenses continue to rise faster than revenue while the regulatory environment has grown increasingly complex. For some rental owners, especially those with older buildings or only a few rental units, the math is making it harder to cover costs, much less generate passive income.
There is also growing concern about the District government’s own financial outlook. Significant budget pressures and spending cuts are being had in a more serious way than many Washingtonians are used to hearing. As uncertainty in federal employment affects local tax revenue and consumer confidence, how will the city fund services, infrastructure, housing programs, and public safety priorities in the years ahead?
At the same time, consumer confidence feels noticeably down than it did even a few years ago. People are taking longer to make decisions, whether that means signing a lease, purchasing a home, renovating a property, or expanding a business. That hesitation creates a slower-moving marketplace where caution often replaces momentum.
Despite all this, Washington has proven remarkably resilient over time. The city continues to attract talented professionals, international investment, universities, healthcare institutions, and industries tied to government, law, technology, and public policy. Neighborhoods continue to evolve, and demand for well-managed rental housing remains strong in the core areas of the city.
Unlike other major cities driven by private industry, federal employment and contracting are two of the main pillars of Washington’s economy. That reliance has long insulated the region from deep recessions. But it also creates vulnerability when federal activity slows.
D.C.’s economy is far more interconnected and interdependent than many people fully appreciate. Between significant federal layoffs, the District’s high unemployment rate, and broader economic uncertainty, there are a number of warning signs that property owners should be paying close attention to. When federal hiring slows or contracts tighten, the impact extends well beyond government workers themselves. It affects restaurants, retail, housing, and countless other sectors tied to the District’s economic activity.
Brookings Institution has documented how job losses in higher-income sectors can disproportionately impact urban economies—precisely because those workers drive local spending.
Research from the Urban Institute supports this view, noting that federal workforce disruptions can quickly ripple through the region’s economy. For landlords and renters alike, those ripples are already being felt. Renters see many more properties on the market which gives them leverage on negotiating discounts in rent or special incentives. Housing providers, already squeezed by the reality of a weak economy and strong regulations face lowering rents and income.
For years, affordability has been one of D.C.’s most persistent challenges. Much of that pressure has been driven by strong job growth and sustained demand for housing at a pace that new housing inventory has struggled to match. That imbalance has steadily pushed rents and home prices higher, leaving many residents financially stretched.
Recent multifamily housing data suggests the market is already beginning to adjust. Developers delivered more than 15,000 apartment units across the Washington metropolitan area over the past year, and several industry reports have noted that elevated supply levels, combined with slower demand growth, have contributed to softer occupancy levels and downward pressure on rents in portions of the region. CoStar, CBRE, and Northmarq have all reported rising vacancy rates across segments of the D.C. multifamily market as newly delivered Class A inventory continues entering the pipeline at a time when hiring growth has moderated and federal workforce uncertainty has increased.
At the same time, several economists and housing analysts have cautioned that the District’s affordability challenges are deeply structural and unlikely to disappear quickly. The Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University has repeatedly identified Washington among the nation’s more cost-burdened metropolitan areas, particularly for renters, while Zillow data continues to show housing costs consuming a substantial percentage of household income for many residents.
From my own perspective as a property manager working directly in the market every day, I believe we are beginning to see the early stages of a market recalibration rather than a collapse. Anecdotally, there appears to be more competition among larger apartment buildings than there was several years ago, particularly in neighborhoods where substantial new inventory has recently delivered. That does not necessarily mean dramatic rent declines are coming, but it does suggest that the imbalance between supply and demand may be moderating somewhat after years of sustained upward pressure on pricing.
Even if prices soften, affordability will remain a long-term challenge.
Regulation and the Realities of Tenant Turnover
The same rental owner I spoke with pointed to regulatory hurdles as a major source of hesitation to continue renting out his property, given past bad experiences with tenants and excessive costs to prepare the rental for a new tenant.
For many small property owners, the cumulative weight of regulation, maintenance costs, and market uncertainty is becoming harder to bear. Clients of mine have described feeling overwhelmed, not just financially, but emotionally. What was once a source of pride has, in some cases, become a source of stress.
We’re seeing more small landlords sell their rental homes, questioning whether it’s worth staying in the market. That’s a significant shift from even five or ten years ago. The National Multifamily Housing Council has noted that regulatory complexity often disproportionately impacts smaller landlords, who lack the resources of larger firms.
Some are choosing to sell. Others are simply trying to hold on. The result is the same – less rental housing for DC residents.
A Shift From Pride to Disillusionment
Perhaps the most striking theme is the emotional shift described by the property owner. For some, owning property in D.C., once a milestone achievement, has become a source of disillusionment. They cited financial losses, regulatory frustration, and a growing sense of political alienation.
There are also broader concerns about:
- The decline of small multifamily ownership
- Rising foreclosures in certain segments
- Increased consolidation by larger institutional landlords
If small landlords continue to exit the market, it changes the entire housing ecosystem. You lose diversity in housing options, and that can have long-term consequences for affordability. It also robs families of having homes large enough to live in.
Politics and Policy: A System at a Standstill?
The political environment has obviously been a key factor shaping the city’s housing future. Following the 2026 elections, a lack of significant leadership change may result in continued policy stagnation.
Without meaningful policy shifts, we’re likely to see more of the same: continued and increasing pressure on landlords and not enough study and focus on policies to increase housing supply by first stopping those property owners fleeing the District’s extreme tenant friendliness. The D.C. City Council remains central to these decisions, with advocacy groups continuing to push for expanded tenant protections. The importance of balance cannot be understated: ensuring protections for renters while maintaining a viable environment for housing providers.
Taken together, these dynamics point to a housing system at a crossroads.
D.C. must find a way to balance:
- Tenant protections
- Housing affordability
- Landlord sustainability
- Long-term investment in housing supply
What’s Next?
D.C. isn’t going anywhere. The question is how it adapts. If we can find the right balance, there’s a path forward, but it’s going to take time and thoughtful policy decisions. For landlords, that path will require adaptability and engagement. For renters, it may mean gradual rather than immediate relief. For policymakers, it presents a clear challenge: create a system that works for everyone.
Scott Bloom is owner and senior property manager of Columbia Property Management. Contact him via ColumbiaPM.com.
Vote to enshrine same-sex marriage in state constitution fails in Delaware
Judge blocks DOJ from obtaining transgender patients’ medical records
Trump holds housing bill hostage to anti-trans SAVE Act
Religion, spirituality, and humanity: finding meaning in a complex world
Queer candidates, allies win Md. primary races
PHOTOS: Baltimore Pride Festival
‘Feeling Afraid’ explores life of a neurotic stand-up comic
PHOTOS: 2026 Capital Pride Parade
Union leader files assault complaint against gay Md. delegate after fight at early-voting site
