To strip club, or not to strip club, that is the question?

[No Adventure Is Too Small]

http://www.kpcnews.com/index.php?opt...id=79#comments

Would any other legitimate business in Angola sit still for this type of treatment from their elected officials? I realize that the plan commission is comprised of appointed board members, but I would be surprised if the City Council doesn't follow the plan commissions lead and pass this change at their meeting. They are both using the same attorney for advice so it stands to reason the same stance will be applied.
While many in the community don't like Mr. Butlers business, it is still a legitimate business, and should not be treated unfairly any more than any other business. The zoning was in place when he purchased the property, and no matter which side of the issue that you stand on it is not proper or fair to change the rules in hindsight. Anyone that feels that this is the proper avenue for addressing this issue or any other similar situation, I feel sorry for you. Here is why I feel sorry for you, don't fool yourselves if this action can happen to Mr. Butler it and can and surely will happen to you at some point. When Mr. Butler purchased the property, he did so with the understanding that his particular business fit that zoning classification. While I realize that councils can not be expected to be able to foresee all future things that they may not agree with and thus regulate them to their satisfaction through ordinances that are often very old. This is definitely not the first time that this type of business was considered in their thought process according to the Heralds reporting of the conflict. Even if the city council does get the changes passed that are the desire of the plan commission, those changes certainly shouldn't apply to Mr. Butlers property. He followed the rules that were in place. People in Angola should be very concerned if this is allowed to take place, and keep in mind that it sets a precedent for how other businesses that some may not like to be treated in the same fashion. There is extremely little chance that I will ever patronize this particular establishment, but I feel strongly that what is happening here is not right. Government no differently than most of us shouldn't get a second bite at the apple, to the detriment of a property owner. If the changes do pass the council I would be surprised if Mr. Butlers attorney doesn't sue for relief and if he wins it costs the council nothing but, it will certainly come from the general coffers of the tax paying public. Is this really how you want your tax dollars expended?

[evilkumquat]

It absolutely is unfair and discriminatory prosecution of Mr. Butler but most of the (is there anything more sarcastic than quotes I can use here?) "conservatives" in this area are more than happy to let one of the things they hate most, "government telling business owners what they can do", slide for that other thing they love, "government making moral decisions for the community".

I would bet money the council would do the exact same thing if a Muslim tried to build a mosque in town as well.

[blue adept]

It absolutely is unfair and discriminatory prosecution of Mr. Butler but most of the (is there anything more sarcastic than quotes I can use here?) "conservatives" in this area are more than happy to let one of the things they hate most, "government telling business owners what they can do", slide for that other thing they love, "government making moral decisions for the community".

I would bet money the council would do the exact same thing if a Muslim tried to build a mosque in town as well.

Exactly! can anyone say Hypocrite?

[mikem]

"I would bet money the council would do the exact same thing if a Muslim tried to build a mosque in town as well."

Gentlemen: There already is a mosque in town. I attended the plan commission and BZA hearings for that, back in the early 1980s. It was not pretty, in fact, it was embarrassing.

[Torget]

Well, for what it's worth, here's my take

Yes, I am conservative and a Christian. I do not agree with this type of business. I will not patronize the place either. I also firmly believe in seperation of church and state. The church should not be involved in political matters, and the state should not dictate who, where, when or how a person chooses to worship, or not worship. They should stay out of each others business entirely, but also respect the decisions of the other.

Getting back to the business in question. I feel that the plan commision is completely wrong in doing this as well. I do agree with the statement about them doing the same if a mosque were in want of being built, it would be met with the same opposition and tactics.

In case you didn't get this from my statement above, I do not believe that government should be making moral decisions for the people. Moral leadership comes from what you believe in.

Now, there are times and circumstances that government should do something either for the betterment or sustainability of a society or even for protection, but this is not one of those times. It is discrimination, no if's and's or but's. The problem is, I am not sure if there are any laws prohibiting this type of discrimination against a business. That doesn't make it right, but from a legal standpoint, they may be able to do this without repercussions.

As I said, I do not agree with this type of business but if that is what the owner wants to do with the property and he meets all applicable laws and ordinances, then he should not be stopped, or treated the way he is being treated. Just like any business, if the citizens don't like it, they won't go there and eventually it will close. One could argue all the bad or good that this type of business will be for the community, and I'm not going to get into that, but I would submit to you that like any legal standing, consumer driven business, it is neither good, nor bad, it just IS.

Not quite the response you all would expect from a conservative Christian, was it?

[No Adventure Is Too Small]

Well, for what it's worth, here's my take

Yes, I am conservative and a Christian. I do not agree with this type of business. I will not patronize the place either. I also firmly believe in seperation of church and state. The church should not be involved in political matters, and the state should not dictate who, where, when or how a person chooses to worship, or not worship. They should stay out of each others business entirely, but also respect the decisions of the other.

Getting back to the business in question. I feel that the plan commision is completely wrong in doing this as well. I do agree with the statement about them doing the same if a mosque were in want of being built, it would be met with the same opposition and tactics.

In case you didn't get this from my statement above, I do not believe that government should be making moral decisions for the people. Moral leadership comes from what you believe in.

Now, there are times and circumstances that government should do something either for the betterment or sustainability of a society or even for protection, but this is not one of those times. It is discrimination, no if's and's or but's. The problem is, I am not sure if there are any laws prohibiting this type of discrimination against a business. That doesn't make it right, but from a legal standpoint, they may be able to do this without repercussions.

As I said, I do not agree with this type of business but if that is what the owner wants to do with the property and he meets all applicable laws and ordinances, then he should not be stopped, or treated the way he is being treated. Just like any business, if the citizens don't like it, they won't go there and eventually it will close. One could argue all the bad or good that this type of business will be for the community, and I'm not going to get into that, but I would submit to you that like any legal standing, consumer driven business, it is neither good, nor bad, it just IS.

Not quite the response you all would expect from a conservative Christian, was it?

Your reply really doesn't surprise me, because I feel that it is based on principle.
That principle being what is right and what is wrong, with regard to all business interests.
I strongly agree with your statement that the purchasing public will determine the ultimate
fate of if it can exist or not through their patronage or lack thereof.
If the rules they now want had already been in place, you would not have heard a peep from me!

[evilkumquat]

"I would bet money the council would do the exact same thing if a Muslim tried to build a mosque in town as well."

Gentlemen: There already is a mosque in town. I attended the plan commission and BZA hearings for that, back in the early 1980s. It was not pretty, in fact, it was embarrassing.

I had no idea we had one! Holy ****!

I would love to hear details of the BZA meeting, even if they would sadly only confirm what I suspect of my fellow Steuben County natives.

Years ago, I was in a position of employment that had me in direct contact with a large number of Islamic students. One day, a neighboring woman complained to me about all the "terrorists" moving into her locale. This was ten years before 9/11, too!

I also recall a snide comment I once received from a local attorney (ironic considering this thread). At the time I had a penchant for wearing collarless dress shirts with no jacket, and one day I was standing in line next to this attorney. He looked me up and down and grimaced "You look like a Muslim priest!". Having never really liked the guy, I ignored him.

[TheBigB]

I also recall a snide comment I once received from a local attorney (ironic considering this thread).

That's who I would have guessed even if you hadn't mentioned the ironic part.

I was back in Angola a few weeks ago, and my family and a few old friends were discussing the practicality of having a local strip club. Angola is still small enough that people *would* recognize your car in the parking lot. You'd need to find some sort of alternate transportation, or keep around an old beater specifically for the trips to the club. I've heard it mentioned from more than a few sources that a shuttle to and from the truck stops would be a great idea, and there may be more to that than a joke. I think it also might be a great idea if the Lake James Golf Course (if it still exists once this place opens) rents out golf carts to drive from the parking lot over to the strip club. And if I were Gary Mallneree, I'd think about running some sort of shuttle from Piggy's.

Of course, none of this addresses the potential awkwardness of bumping into people you know there, maybe even a performer or two. "Hey - I went to high school with your parents!"

[evilkumquat]

That's who I would have guessed even if you hadn't mentioned the ironic part.

I was back in Angola a few weeks ago, and my family and a few old friends were discussing the practicality of having a local strip club. Angola is still small enough that people *would* recognize your car in the parking lot. You'd need to find some sort of alternate transportation, or keep around an old beater specifically for the trips to the club. I've heard it mentioned from more than a few sources that a shuttle to and from the truck stops would be a great idea, and there may be more to that than a joke. I think it also might be a great idea if the Lake James Golf Course (if it still exists once this place opens) rents out golf carts to drive from the parking lot over to the strip club. And if I were Gary Mallneree, I'd think about running some sort of shuttle from Piggy's.

Of course, none of this addresses the potential awkwardness of bumping into people you know there, maybe even a performer or two. "Hey - I went to high school with your parents!"

I would imagine Mr. Butler would shuttle a rotation of girls from his other clubs to keep any "local" girls from appearing (unless they specifically ask for the venue, I suppose).

No one really wants to go to a strip club and meet people they might see outside, at least not the ones from whom they're asking lap dances.

Hell, the whole point is anonymity!

[sturmtiger]

Hold the phone! Republican's are working to limit revenue? Say it isn't so. Yet again showing what hypocrites they really are. Oh, they say they are for smaller government, less regulations to tie business owners hands but, we all know exactly what they do has nothing to do with what they say.

[armyda]

Hold the phone! Republican's are working to limit revenue? Say it isn't so. Yet again showing what hypocrites they really are. Oh, they say they are for smaller government, less regulations to tie business owners hands but, we all know exactly what they do has nothing to do with what they say.

Okay, we are talking about a strip club in Angola. What republicans are you talking about?

[No Adventure Is Too Small]

Okay, we are talking about a strip club in Angola. What republicans are you talking about?

While I may be simply making an assumption, I believe that sturmtiger is referring to the Republicans
that sit on the plan commission board. The only 2 board members that voted in dissent are Democrats.
I am certain that I will be corrected if in fact I am wrong. Oh and while I am at it the thread isn't
necessarily about a "strip club" it's about the appropriateness of changing an ordinances language
after someone shows an interest in placing a particular business in an area that current zoning allows for.
It is about Government regulating unfairly after the fact, and anyone that can see past the fact that they
are doing it because of the type of business interest that is proposed, knows that this is not the way
Government should work. It is not proper to change language to discriminate against other businesses
and it is also not proper in this situation either. The fact is the language was in place and to change
it midstream is absolute discrimination! People need to pull their collective heads out of the sand and
realize if it happens to Mr. Butler, it can and will happen to them at some point. The strip club aspect
in this case is actually irrelevant. They thought that they had everything worded to their satisfaction
only to later have an "oh my gosh what did we do?" moment.

[sturmtiger]

Okay, we are talking about a strip club in Angola. What republicans are you talking about?

The Republicans that sit on the board. Those would be whom I am speaking of.

[armyda]

The Republicans that sit on the board. Those would be whom I am speaking of.

Thank you, I wasn't sure of the exact makeup of the Board or the Council.

[TheBigB]

Thank you, I wasn't sure of the exact makeup of the Board or the Council.

I think that making this out to be a partisan issue would be a big mistake.

[armyda]

I think that making this out to be a partisan issue would be a big mistake.

No argument from me on that.

[No Adventure Is Too Small]

I think that making this out to be a partisan issue would be a big mistake.

For the record, I never held the belief that it was partisan, but more ideological in nature.
Still wrong! No matter the reason because the zoning was in place.
Unfortunately some politicians will do whatever they are going to do
even to their own detriment, prime example being some of the ideological
language in the recent elections. I state again no other business entity would
sit still for this backwards enforcement of zoning and planning, and they
shouldn't have to any more than this guy should!

[blue adept]

I think that making this out to be a partisan issue would be a big mistake.

How is it partisan, unless you are claiming that the religious right is an actual party? The republican party i joined was against bringing religion into politics because IT IS ILLEGAL!

[armyda]

How is it partisan, unless you are claiming that the religious right is an actual party? The republican party i joined was against bringing religion into politics because IT IS ILLEGAL!

I don't agree with commingling religion and politics but I don't see how it is illegal.

The fact that a church cannot make a specific endorsement of particular candidates has to do with their tax exempt status as a 501c3 non-profit. I believe that this was legislation from Lyndon Johnson. If the church wants to give up that status then they can make what ever statements or endorsements they want to.

[blue adept]

I don't agree with commingling religion and politics but I don't see how it is illegal.

The fact that a church cannot make a specific endorsement of particular candidates has to do with their tax exempt status as a 501c3 non-profit. I believe that this was legislation from Lyndon Johnson. If the church wants to give up that status then they can make what ever statements or endorsements they want to.

Unfortunately, they don't do that. Christian churches enjoy a scared cow status here in the US. If you haven't seen the myriad of religious leaders endorsing Mitt, google it.