Laserfiche WebLink
-3- <br />Andy DeGross, owner of Long Lake "66" suggested that the police ask owners <br />to clean up their premises. <br />Mayor Neisen stated that what was needed was an ordinance with some meat in <br />it. <br />MSP (Johnson - Pickar) To adjourn the hearing at 9:24 P.M. 4 Ayes <br />Council decided that they were unable to reach any agreement regarding this <br />problem and informed everyone in the audience that they would be notified at <br />least two weeks prior to the adoption of any proposed change in the ordinance <br />if such change took place, <br />Mayor Neisen called the hearing to consider amending Chapter #100 of the <br />Municipal Code to order at 9:25 P.M. <br />Attorney Meyers read the proposed amendment which dealt with the regulation <br />of obscene or immoral activities which are conducted on premises licensed <br />to sell intoxicating liquor. The ordinance was a direct attempt to control <br />lingerie shows. Attorney Meyers stated that the language for the proposed <br />ordinance amendment came from the California Supreme Court ruling of LaRue <br />versus California, December 5, 1972. He stated that the regulated acts could <br />be viewed, and upon complaint and proof, the liquor license could be suspended <br />or revoked. Furthermore, that a liquor license is not a vested right but a <br />privilege, and an attempt to control obscene activities that occur in an <br />establishment that serve intoxicating liquor is both reasonable and enforceable. <br />A gentleman, (who refused to give his name), inquired as to whether or not <br />a woman that was bra -less would be regulated. The answer was "no ", as long <br />as she was covered. Mr. Anthony Donatelle asked, if bra and panties were <br />worn by a girl, if it was okay. The reply was that this was not illegal by <br />this ordinance, provided the parts mentioned were not displayed. <br />Mr. Charles Hall, owner of the Mermaid stated that he has seven lingerie <br />shows per week, and that in order to make his business successful, he has <br />to draw business outside of Mounds View. He said that models represent about <br />1/6 of his business volume. Over 8,000 persons per month go through the <br />Mermaid. He did not find objections to the Council requiring that dancing be <br />performed on stage, but asked that transparent or opaque covering be allowed <br />for the top and bottom rather than requiring only opaque covering. He added <br />that everyone in the establishment was of legal age and that the show was a <br />well run operation. His business has increased over 70% since May 1, 1972 when <br />he obtained ownership. And, he needs to remain competitive with St. Paul or <br />his business volume will decrease. He declared that the police chief has <br />said there have been few problems at the Mermaid since he assumed ownership. <br />Jack Wallace, counsel for the Mermaid said that he had attended two shows at <br />the Mermaid. He did agree with Attorney Meyers general conclusion on the <br />Villages regulatory powers. However, he added that he has been at other bars <br />where persons are more discourteous and the language has been worse. He felt <br />that the lingerie show had a quieting effect; that the men were controlled. <br />