 Todd DormanTodd Dorman is a columnist for The Gazette. His blog has been bringing smiles to readers' faces since November 2007. |
|
Email the author
Lingerie, anatomical areas and the trouble with vagueness
Patricia Edmonds’ shop is tied up in legal shades of gray.
Raymond Nees, assistant manager of building services for this fair city, walked into Edmonds’ store, “Simply Sensual” on Wiley Boulevard way out west, down the road from a cornfield, and saw what he declares to be an “adult entertainment establishment.” He looked around and concluded that a “substantial or significant portion” of its business involves selling items depicting what the city code calls “specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas.”
His opinion means that Edmonds now has 30 days to remove that stuff or shut down. Her store now violates zoning rules. For one thing, there’s a church behind the shop, and an adult entertainment facility can’t be within 450 feet of it.
The board of adjustment rejected her appeal without comment Monday. The all-male panel was left speechless.
I walked into the shop Wednesday and saw a lot of lingerie hanging about, games and novelty items, the kind of stuff you might find at a bachelorette party. There’s a pole dancing kit, and pans for baking unusual cakes.
And, behind a wall in the back of the store, there are sexually explicit videos and magazines for sale, along with sex toys of varying sizes and, uh, shapes.
Still, when I think of adult entertainment joints, this is not the sort of place that springs to mind. It’s basically a small, quiet business. When city leaders put tight zoning restrictions on adult entertainment, I also doubt this is the sort of place they had in mind. Theaters, clubs, cabarets, sure. Not this strip mall store.
That’s just my opinion, carrying about as much weight as a garter.
I might not be alone. Edmonds says, since her shop made news, a few folks have showed up, expecting entertainment. She said they walk in, glance around briefly, find themselves un-entertained and walk out. It actually happened while I was there.
Back to shades of gray. Edmonds has a point when she argues that “substantial or significant” leaves a lot to the imagination. Nees ordered her to remove all items depicting those specified activities and parts. But those specifics are also pretty broad.
Edmonds considered removing movies and magazines. But then she wondered what the city would make her toss next. Will she have to run every new product past a city official, just in case they are, as Nees puts it, “beyond the pale?”
Wouldn’t it be better if the law contained clear, objective standards? Instead of measuring significant or substantial, how about maximum square footage, shelf space, number of items, percentage of sales, etc.? Bright lines instead of hip shots.
And who is this episode of tough zoning protecting? At a time when anyone with a smartphone has an adult cinema in their pocket, this seems overblown. The Rev. Jay Eberly from the Spirit of Family Church next door says kids at its preschool need protection from “child molesters” thatr may be drawn to the store. Please.
So, if she can find a lawyer, Edmonds is headed to court, which makes sense. That’s where well-intentioned laws get checked for harmful, unnecessary vagueness. Let’s hope the ruling is revealing.
-u20042.png?1366232523)
As Patricia Edmond’s father, I am obviously biased in this matter. However, let’s take a look at this situation from a rational perspective. This store does harm to no one. No children are allowed in the door. No children even know of its existence unless informed of it by adults. How does that harm children. I defy the good reverend Eberly to find one thing in this store that would attract a pedophile. I worked with sex offenders for nearly 40 years as a probation/parole officer and can tell you from that experience that this is the last place in town that a pedophile would enter as he would therefore attract attention to himself. Also I doubt that those children he so quickly defends from “evil” would be able to tell you anything about this store that did not come from the reverend’s mouth. Here’s a point. How is singling out churches for special consideration in this law not a violation of the first amendment? Isn’t that government making a law respecting the establishment of religion? Both Patricia and Mr. Dorman are correct. This ordinance is so completely vague as to unenforceable. Courts have ruled many, many times that laws and ordinances have to be precise enough that a reasonable person could define what they mean. This one is left completely to the discretion of the enforcer.
Bodies like the board of adjustment exist to enforce the will of the rich and powerful who create and populate those boards with their minions. They enforce the opinions of those who put them in those positions without regard to the actual written ordinance.
I wonder if the same people who want to be petty and infringe on this business and, indirectly, infringe on consumers will claim to be defenders of liberty and freedom. Just saying.
I wonder if the big government statists who see the need for government intervention in every nook and cranny of our lives will feign outrage over this ridiculous intrusion. Just saying.