Jump to navigation
Cover That Up, Please
R. Alex Whitlock
As the City of Houston prepares to crack down on sexually-oriented businesses, the Chronicle reports that SOB owners have found a
little loophole:
Facing a looming city crackdown on sexually oriented businesses, some strip clubs in Houston have a fallback strategy to keep their operations open: requiring their dancers to cover up.
A little.
Topless and fully nude clubs could avoid regulation altogether if their dancers wear bikinis, or even skimpier opaque coverings, allowing them to get around the "sexually oriented" classification, police and city officials acknowledged.
That would allow the clubs to remain open at their current locations, despite an ordinance now prohibiting them from operating within 1,500 feet of churches, schools, parks and residential areas.
The Chron's portrays this as "dancing around the law", the same way that they might report the gun show loophole in anti-gun legislation. But saying that nudie bars are "skirting" SOB laws by having their employees wear bikinis is akin to saying that someone skirted anti-marijuana laws by selling cigarettes instead. We're talking about completely different things!
As for the law itself, my main problem with it is that, as far as I can recall, there is no grandfather clause protecting the investment of people who opened those clubs back when they were not regulated into a difficult business model. Then again, it's difficult to have too much sympathy for people that decide to make a living exploiting young women, exploiting the sexual frustration of men, and profiting off an overly-sexualized culture.
Observations
>>As for the law itself, my main problem with it is that, as far as I can recall, there is no grandfather clause protecting the investment of people who opened those clubs back when they were not regulated into a difficult business model.<<
I believe that's right.
My understanding is that existing businesses have no recourse either if a "protected entity" sets up shop later. That is to say, if a church or school opens up tomorrow right next door, the SOB is out of luck.
That suggests an interesting racket which an Al Sharpton type might pursue: shake down SOB operators with the threat of setting up a "church" next door.
As opposed to the rest of Sharpton's shakedown rackets?
Seriously though, the constitutional protections against ex post facto laws ought to apply to this; you shouldn't be able to shut down a business (of any sort) based on a new neighbor moving in.
Or at the VERY least, eminent domain protections and a proper payment for the siezed property ought to be required if they're forced to move.
Add an Observation
Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.
