>
Secondly, if you were a betting man, what would you consider to be the most likely outcome (so to speak) of their September court case?
>
Ben,
Some of the issues that the SOB ordinance addresses such as club lighting, the distance that dancers can perform in front of customers, the elimination of "private" rooms, and the licensing of dancers maybe unconstitutional.
However, the biggest part of the ordinance, that of a club moving if it is too close to a residential neighborhood, a school, a church, or other SOB clubs, even if it has been in its current location for years is probably not unconstitutional.
The reason is that Houston has no zoning. In Minnesota, nearly all the SOBs are in the downtown area. It is zoned that way. In Houston, SOBs can appear nearly anywhere. In previous cases, courts have ruled that if a city does not have zoning, then provided that additional locations can be found, and the company is given time to recoup its losses ( amoritization ), the company must move.
Remember, that Houston's restrictive SOB policy came about because of RICK purchasing land in the West University area, a wealthy residential area near Rice University ( I never understood why RICK did this. What could they gain with two RICKs in the overcrowded and still growing Houston topless market? ). So, the law initially was to restrict clubs from encroaching residential areas. As it stands now, the ordinance is a monster. It is, I think, much too tough for the clubs.
When I spoke to a few dancer friends, they indicated that if the ordinance is enacted many will go elsewhere to make a living or simply quit the business. The end result maybe clubs of lesser quality and appeal.
By the way, has anybody noticed that the quality of the dancers at Houston Rick's has slipped? There was a time when they and the Men's Club had the best... Oh, how I miss those days! |
