[chockablock]

> It then claims, without reference, that the VCR was a market replacement for physical sexual encounters. It goes on to ignore that AIDS was a health epidemic related to these sexual encounters, and that when the seedy operators are finally taken out of an area the real estate values increase.

I don't think you read the article very carefully. The sentence immediately after the mention of the VCR is about how AIDS led to the closing of many venues. The one after that is about the role of property values (though it claims causality in the other direction--that sex clubs were priced out as neighborhoods got richer).

> What value is this essay supposed to have to this particular forum?

Overall the essay reads to me as being very light on editorializing, and much more of a straight-ahead narration of an important facet of the city's history. I learned a lot from reading it, despite having lived in SF for many years.