The City Council of G'boro is tryin' 2 take away your rights 2 c beautiful women.
U knew it was gonna happen...
I warned ya.
Here's the original link 2 the story below: http://www.topix.net/r/05KQAC65=2B9p3CnEOW2BSxTQ2YFSvRmWz6KYpMpVj4hRUxRMqvUXWc403xHqZ8qDbVvS9dPbF0CSkc5HpzlUbwEVCPtwJOTj9w20qrenlL6K9vdkr1=2FzyuSnsAT=2Bkdr0ZWar=2FiFxT1JbCBy=2B=2FYF7OQWTRZCC2=2FsjvpLmNOHTMNU5I=3D
For those of ya who can't wait, here's the story...
Adult businesses challenge restrictions
By Eric Swensen, Staff Writer
GREENSBORO -- A group of adult businesses has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the city of Greensboro's right to enforce rules that would require many of them to close or move.The plaintiffs include five companies now doing business in Greensboro -- Christie's Cabaret, Southside Johnny's, Chester's Premier Gentlemen's Club, Harper's II Gentlemen's Club and Harper's Exotic Car Wash. A sixth plaintiff, Simply Explicit LLC, intends to open an adult video and book store on Wendover Avenue, according to court documents. In October 2001, City Council voted to ban sexually oriented businesses within 1,000 feet of churches, schools, day-care centers, parks or property zoned residential. Council's 2001 vote also eliminated rules that allowed those businesses already located in areas of the city that didn't meet the new regulations to stay in their existing locations, instead giving them two years to close or relocate. In February 2004, City Council amended the city's sexually oriented business rules to allow adult businesses in areas of the city designated for heavy industrial uses.
Sexually oriented businesses were given until Feb. 3, 2006, to comply with the amended rules. Zoning administrator Bill Ruska said Friday it appears that 13 sexually oriented businesses in the city would have to move, modify their business or close to comply with the city's regulations. Unless a judge issues an injunction, city attorney Linda Miles said the city plans to enforce the regulations. The city would begin with fines before moving to close down businesses, said assistant city attorney Blair Carr. Any move to close noncompliant businesses wouldn't happen until after the court case is completed, Carr said.
Attorneys for the adult businesses argue that they're being unfairly singled out because other businesses are allowed to stay in their current locations even if they don't meet new rules in the development ordinance. They argue in their filing that the city's rules are unconstitutional for curtailing the businesses' free expression and free-speech rights and for restricting speech based on its content. The adult businesses' attorneys also argue that the new rules were adopted despite a lack of evidence for the need to further regulate sexually oriented businesses. The adult businesses are seeking a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the city's rules and attorneys' fees and costs. The city believes it can regulate the locations of sexually oriented businesses because the rights of neighbors to be free of the effects of the businesses, such as increased crime, outweigh the businesses' free-speech rights, Carr said.
As for the claim that the regulations were adopted despite a lack of evidence that they're needed, Carr said the city's legal staff is "confident we adequately advised City Council before they made a decision." Carr declined further comment on that aspect of the lawsuit because litigation is pending. When the city faced a similar federal lawsuit from a group of adult businesses in 2003, the city's evidence included police logs that showed numerous emergency calls to and near adult businesses in the city. The minutes from City Council's Feb. 3, 2004, meeting where the revised sexually oriented business regulations were adopted show that council members were presented with reports on the topic. This is the second time a group of adult businesses have filed a lawsuit challenging the city's right to limit where they can operate.
In 2003, a group of adult businesses filed a lawsuit challenging the city's regulations of sexually oriented businesses, and the city agreed at a judge's request to delay enforcing the new regulations pending the outcome of the court case. A month after City Council approved changes to regulations dealing with sexually oriented businesses, the city and the adult businesses suing the city mutually agreed to dismiss the lawsuit in March 2004.
Contact Eric Swensen at 883-4422, Ext. 227, or email@example.com
All of this sh*t actually started waaaaay back, on October 16, 1999.
That's almost 7 f*ckin' YEARS!!
If the city is soooo concerned about clubs causing crime, how come The Sky Bar in Downtown Greensboro is still open w/ all the bullsh*t that goes on there?
Inside AND out?
How come The City Council won't f*ck w/ Johnny's highly illegal Copa Roca Cantina on Sands Dr.?
Here's The City Council's Official Website if ya wanna b*tch & complain 2 them about it:
Will the many strip club workers in G'boro b out of a job?
I highly doubt it...
Don't let the city take away your right 2 c