Grand Rapids Nude Dancing Ban....For? or Against?

[civitas]

Supposing that your grown up daughter did go that route and send the letter to you. Would you disown her if she committed to it?

You can't disown a child! Parents are sometimes disappointed by the choices their kids make, but I will always love my daughters no matter what they do (as they have loved me in spite of my many mistakes).

[Rizzo]

Everytime I see this thread come up I get that song I hear on 104.5 "I'm in love with a stripper" in my head.

[grandrapidsdude123]

Dad, You really can't have sympothy for woman who's in that line of work. I went to school with a stripper, she had kids, and no options. I thought, man if there's any person that needs a leg up it would be her. Then I woke up and realised that girls in her situation that use the excuse "It's my last option." are kidding themselves. There's plenty of work for young attractive females that sell themselves, its called floor sales -- and I hear there can be good money in that.

Some always feel these girls are exploited.

Well, what about me. The guy who enjoys going to a club once and a while. Perhaps I'm the one being exploited. I always leave with a lighter wallet. Who's going to stand up for me, a guy who just can't say no to dances from a beautiful girl.

[Rizzo]

Good for you... But in the end you can't really treat this with any seriousness anyway. Live and let live, meh. I can't believe we are bickering over something this petty. I mean in NYC they have cuddle parties, now thats disturbing.

[DwntwnGeo]

You can't disown a child!

As much as I would like to believe your statement is true, it happens everday

[grandrapidsdude123]

I mean in NYC they have cuddle parties, now thats disturbing.

I'll agree with you 100%

It's more like an orgy in footie pajamas.

[Rizzo]

footie pajamas, now thats disturbing... I absolutely can not wear thoes damn pajamas, absolutely not!

[GRDadof3]

You're right Rizzo. If most people had ever been to a strip club, they would realize what a big deal people are making out of nothing.

I'd rather have one of my daughters break that news to me than be a cracked out/heroin addict, or even worse, dating some guy who I find out beats her up or verbally abuses her.

But like House of Don said, there are bigger issues at stake.

[Rizzo]

that was my argument way back... the real problem is the private funds issue. Where's the line?

[snoogit]

What would you do if the City Commission refused to pass a fair, just, necessary and appropriate ordinance because they did not have money to defend themselves against a threatened law suit?

You don't pass it on someone else's dime, its illegal and its called bribery. If they wanted to do it the right way you put it to a vote of the people, after careful explanation of the costs of passing the legislation (maybe a higher fee for the bus, or other raised city cost)

If the voters felt after being explained about the ordanance and its potential cost and still passed it, then the city can find legal ways to raise funds for a legal defense. As it is, this screams of bribery, and lobbyist legislation.

[joeDowntown]

We'd beotch about it. But pay for it, probably not? I'm no lawyer but it seems to me that buying city government is illegal. "Hey, if I pay you 100k, can I send your lawyers to fight my fight"?

What is tough about this situation is that you have a *MINORITY* of the city that is actually bothered by strip clubs. Most people could probably care less (unless it became a NIMBY situation) but they aren't passionate enough to stand in front of city hall with signs that say "Yes to Strip Clubs". So basically, the passionate minority is buying city hall.

I also laugh when people talk about the "crime, and the degradation of women". I bet you 10 to 1 there are more calls made to the B.O.B. in any given year then Sensations. In fact, in Sensations neighborhood, the Orbit Room seems to be the problem neighbor, not the other way around. And do you think Dar Vander Ark is going to petition the J.W. Marriott to not sell adult movies when it opens? It's a great profit center, Marriott (and the DeVos and Van Andel family for that matter) won't budge on that issue.

Joe

What would you do if the City Commission refused to pass a fair, just, necessary and appropriate ordinance because they did not have money to defend themselves against a threatened law suit?

[joeDowntown]

Could the city leaders in fact be deemed corrupt and investigated purely from using private money to form public policy? I would love to know if what they are doing is illegal or just shady as hell.

Joe

The fact of the matter is that private funds were spent to create city policy. It's a quid pro quo transaction. Without those private dollars, the city would never have considered such an ordinance. I don't care what the issue at hand is, such an action is wrong. I can't believe that most people aren't seeing this for what it is, just because it's wrapped in the guise of a morality issue.

[civitas]

We'd beotch about it. But pay for it, probably not? I'm no lawyer but it seems to me that buying city government is illegal. "Hey, if I pay you 100k, can I send your lawyers to fight my fight"?

What is tough about this situation is that you have a *MINORITY* of the city that is actually bothered by strip clubs. Most people could probably care less (unless it became a NIMBY situation) but they aren't passionate enough to stand in front of city hall with signs that say "Yes to Strip Clubs". So basically, the passionate minority is buying city hall.

I also laugh when people talk about the "crime, and the degradation of women". I bet you 10 to 1 there are more calls made to the B.O.B. in any given year then Sensations. In fact, in Sensations neighborhood, the Orbit Room seems to be the problem neighbor, not the other way around. And do you think Dar Vander Ark is going to petition the J.W. Marriott to not sell adult movies when it opens? It's a great profit center, Marriott (and the DeVos and Van Andel family for that matter) won't budge on that issue.

Joe

I don't believe that the City Commission approved this ban while thinking only a minority of the city supported them. These are elected men and women who generally follow the majority opinion. There has been very little comment about the ban since it was passed. The silence confirms that the majority support the commissioner's vote.

I doubt that anyone will actually pay the city money for city lawyers to defend the ordinance. What typically happens is for someone with a legal standing in the matter to join the city in the lawsuit. The city commission has a very serious problem with the budget. Although I suspect they may have been always inclined to pass the all-nude ban, they were concerned about the cost of defending a predictable lawsuit. The fact that another party with standing was prepared to help with that lawsuit eliminated that concern. I suspect, however, that the money will pay for outside attorneys and will not pass through the city's hands. There is nothing illegal about any of this.

This commission may have passed the ordinance even without the outside support.

Regarding crime statistics, here are the references from the ordinance:

b. The City Commission also relies upon findings concerning secondary effects contained in

additional reports as well as in cases in accord with those cited in Sec. 5.283, including those

upholding regulations of nudity and the time, place, and manner of operation of sexually oriented

businesses: Deja Vu of Cincinnati, L.L.C. v. Union Township, 411 F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 2005);

Bronco's Entertainment, Ltd. v. Charter Township of Van Buren, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 18496

(6th Cir. 2005); Charter Township of Van Buren v. Garter Belt, Inc., 258 Mich. App. 594 (2003)

(following City of Erie v. Pap's A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (2000), Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S.

560 (1991), and California v. LaRue, 409 U.S. 109 (1972)); Gammoh v. City of La Habra, 395

F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2005); SOB, Inc. v. County of Benton, 317 F.3d 856 (8th Cir. 2003); G.M.

Enterprises, Inc. v. Town of St. Joseph, 350 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2003); Heideman v. South Salt

Lake City, 348 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2003); In re Tennessee Public Indecency Statute, 1999 U.S.

App. LEXIS 535 (6th Cir. 1999); Currence v. City of Cincinnati, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 1258); Jott,

Inc. v. Clinton Township, 224 Mich. App. 513 (1997); Michigan ex rel. Wayne County Prosecutor

v. Dizzy Duck, 449 Mich. 353 (1995); Kev, Inc. v. Kitsap County, 793 F.2d 1053 (9th Cir. 1986);

Hang On, Inc. v. City of Arlington, 65 F.3d 1248 (5th Cir. 1995); Tily B, Inc. v. City of Newport

Beach, 69 Cal. App. 4th 1 (Cal. App. 1997); Lady J. Lingerie, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 973

F.Supp. 1428 (M.D. Fla. 1997); City of Elko v. Abed, 2004 Minn. App. LEXIS 360 (Minn. App.

2004); Center for Fair Public Policy v. Maricopa County, 336 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2003); Richland

Bookmart, Inc. v. Nichols, 137 F.3d 435 (6th Cir. 1998); Richland Bookmart, Inc. v. Nichols, 278

F.3d 570 (6th Cir. 2002); DiMa Corp. v. Town of Hallie, 185 F.3d 823 (7th Cir. 1999); Lady J.

Lingerie, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 176 F.3d 1358 (11th Cir. 1998); Nat'l Amusements Inc. v.

Town of Dedham, 43 F.3d 731 (1st Cir. 1995); Mitchell v. Comm'n on Adult Enter. Est. of the

State of Delaware, 10 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 1993); Star Satellite, Inc. v. City of Biloxi, 779 F.2d

1074 (5th Cir. 1986); Heideman v. South Salt Lake City, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 2745 (10th Cir.

2006); Fantasyland Video, Inc. v. San Diego County, 373 F. Supp. 2d 1094 (S.D. Cal. 2005);

State ex rel. Nasal v. BJS No. 2, Inc., 127 Ohio Misc. 2d 101 (Ohio Ct. Comm. Pleas 2003); Baby

Dolls Topless Saloons, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 295 F.3d 471_2002 (5th Cir. 2002); ); Z.J. Gifts D-2,

L.L.C. v. City of Aurora, 136 F.3d 683 (10th Cir. 1998); World Wide Video of Washington, Inc. v.

City of Spokane, 368 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2004); Andy's Restaurant & Lounge, Inc. v. City of Gary,

Case No. 2:01-CV-327 (N.D. Ind. 2005); Summaries of Key Reports Concerning the Negative

Secondary Effects of Sexually Oriented Businesses; Rome, Georgia

[snoogit]

Its bribery, I dont care how you want to look at it civitas. Direct or indirect its 100% illegal. There is no loop hole in this matter. Its dangerous, dispicable, dirty, and illegal politics. Why do you think Congressmen like Tom Delay, and lobbyist/fundraisers Jack Abramoff will be going to jail?

They pulled the same stunts, except they raised funds for counties to fight for certain indian casinos to exist, while fundraising to fight legal battles against other indian casinos to not exist.

Its ILLEGAL.

[joeDowntown]

Civitas,

You contradict yourself multiple times here. Money won't pass through city hands but an outside group WILL fight their battle.

They were inclined to pass the ban but didn't have the money to do it because of a budget crunch (and now they do- where did that come from)?

Your statements don't add up.

You also mentioned that there MUST be a majority. This is flat out a case of the squeeky wheel getting greased. I am not opposed to strip clubs, but I'm not going to be vilified by stepping forward. Many people do not mind strip clubs being a part of the fabric of the city but they are also not going to step forward.

I still want to see these crime statistics, and not from some Decency group. Just the facts. Are they any worse than a bar that serves alcohol? Is the "illicit drug use" any worse than any other bar? Can't urban blight and littering (I love the litter defense) be stopped through existing ordinances?

When I was in NYC recently, you'd see two hip bars, a nice restaurant and a strip club all in the same block. No blight, no crime. And this is two blocks off broadway in the heart of a tourist district.

Remember, this is the same rag tag group that fought for against a Hooters restaurant in GR. While I haven't been there (I hate wings), I haven't heard about heroin induced naked orgies spilling into the streets, have you?

Joe

I doubt that anyone will actually pay the city money for city lawyers to defend the ordinance. What typically happens is for someone with a legal standing in the matter to join the city in the lawsuit. The city commission has a very serious problem with the budget. Although I suspect they may have been always inclined to pass the all-nude ban, they were concerned about the cost of defending a predictable lawsuit. The fact that another party with standing was prepared to help with that lawsuit eliminated that concern. I suspect, however, that the money will pay for outside attorneys and will not pass through the city's hands. There is nothing illegal about any of this.

This commission may have passed the ordinance even without the outside support.

[GRDadof3]

I don't believe that the City Commission approved this ban while thinking only a minority of the city supported them. These are elected men and women who generally follow the majority opinion. There has been very little comment about the ban since it was passed. The silence confirms that the majority support the commissioner's vote.

I think the silence is more due to people not giving a rip about the issue. Especially with the "end-of-the-world" gas prices!

This just in - WZZM devotes an entire section of their website to gas prices

Off topic again!

[DwntwnGeo]

Joe,

You said it a lot more "politically correct" than I could have.

Some said "show me the money" when it came to Project X, Well, I say, show me the "facts" that strip clubs are so much worse than bars and dance clubs.

Civitas,

You contradict yourself multiple times here. Money won't pass through city hands but an outside group WILL fight their battle.

They were inclined to pass the ban but didn't have the money to do it because of a budget crunch (and now they do- where did that come from)?

Your statements don't add up.

You also mentioned that there MUST be a majority. This is flat out a case of the squeeky wheel getting greased. I am not opposed to strip clubs, but I'm not going to be vilified by stepping forward. Many people do not mind strip clubs being a part of the fabric of the city but they are also not going to step forward.

I still want to see these crime statistics, and not from some Decency group. Just the facts. Are they any worse than a bar that serves alcohol? Is the "illicit drug use" any worse than any other bar? Can't urban blight and littering (I love the litter defense) be stopped through existing ordinances?

When I was in NYC recently, you'd see two hip bars, a nice restaurant and a strip club all in the same block. No blight, no crime. And this is two blocks off broadway in the heart of a tourist district.

Remember, this is the same rag tag group that fought for against a Hooters restaurant in GR. While I haven't been there (I hate wings), I haven't heard about heroin induced naked orgies spilling into the streets, have you?

Joe

[francishsu]

I see this as more unethical than illegal. It's hard to claim bribery when the commissioners will not make any money off of this. From my perspective, the majority of the city residents may support the ban in principle, but it's very weak support. Few want taxpayer money spent defending it, but most would probably be happy to see the strip clubs go away.

I agree with Tormala that if the city wants to pass something like this, it needs to have strong enough support that money should come from the city to defend it and that the public support the city spending the money. I don't know what went on at the public meeting on the ordinance, but apparantly nobody raised a big stink about it or else the media would have been all over that.

[Sunlover38]

. . . And another point, how can one argue that strip clubs degrade women, if anything they degrade men. It's men who spend ridiculous amounts of money at these places, and the women who make huge amounts of money working very few hours, woment by far get the better end of the deal.

that is the most absurd thing I have ever heard . . . . degrading to men LMFAO

[francishsu]

that is the most absurd thing I have ever heard . . . . degrading to men LMFAO

I don't find it absurd. When I was at one, from what I saw, the more engaged customers and the dancers were treated as objects by the other. It might have been the club I went to, but it was pretty pathetic.

[Rizzo]

Well, if they dare dip into my refund check Heartwell owes me then I'm gonna be pissed. I swear I'll be a lone soldier with my friggin signs on the steps of city hall if they use my money on this.

[Sunlover38]

I don't find it absurd. When I was at one, from what I saw, the more engaged customers and the dancers were treated as objects by the other. It might have been the club I went to, but it was pretty pathetic.

If strip clubs were even minutely degrading to men, there would be no strip clubs. . period.

[GRDadof3]

What, you can't imagine one guy making money off the degradation of a bunch of other guys? We're not the tight-knit club you might think we are.

[Nitro]

If strip clubs were even minutely degrading to men, there would be no strip clubs. . period.

There are men's strip clubs too. Usually they are busier then the women's strip clubs. If I remember right Friday night or Saturday night at Parkway Tropics is male dancers becuase it draws more business.

It's very hard to degrade men. It's one of the fundamental differences between the sexes.

[hood]

It's very hard to degrade men. It's one of the fundamental differences between the sexes.

Very true, but funny!