gr00090_000031_pg034 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

He asked if the Village has had specific complaints. He did agree that dancing on tables was "bad news ", but his client has separated the dancing and the show from the dining room so persons not wanting to view the show will not be exposed to it. Since Mr. Hall assumed ownership it is now the kind of place he could take his wife. According to Mr. Wallace, the St. Paul ordinance was in two parts, regulating one who serves and any customers. He felt that the courts would not support the covering of the breast with an opaque cover. He asked whether the complaints were affecting the community and where is the problem? He told the Council that their approach was severe. Dorothy Freyburger, 5178 Longview Drive, added that Mr. Hall had not asked her to come to the hearing and she has worked for Mr. Hall for about ten weeks and there have been no fights or problems while she was employed there. Phyllis Blanchard, 8005 Groveland Road, stated she was against the ordinance because she was against censorship. Councilman Pickar asked if it was only Paragraph "G" that concerned Mr. Hall. In reply, Attorney Meyers declared that the ordinance was modeled from St. Paul except that section "G" differs with St. Paul's wording of "transparent or opaque ". In Mounds View's proposed ordinance any display to public view is prohibited. Councilman Baumgartner asked if the Council could control covering by requesting opaque cover. Attorney Meyers stated that in the regulation of liquor the Council can pass reasonable regulations. The Supreme Court did not rule on transparency per se. Mayor Neisen stated that he had received six or seven calls before he went to see the show and about 15 to 20 calls since, three in favor of the show. He became disgusted at the dancing on the tables and the language that took place by the announcer. He felt any person should be prohibited from dancing on any table or bar not just any employee and that the dancers should be at least three feet away from any person. He would allow transparency on the breasts, but favored an opaque covering of the pubic area. Charles Hall stated that he would like the girls to be able to wear transparent panties. Councilman Baumgartner said he would agree to transparency on top with the double transparency on the bottom, meaning transparent panties covered by a negligee. Councilman Johnson said he had attended the show recently and he found the announcer vulgar. He was more offended by his language than by the girls. Councilman Pickar said he was impressed by the police surveillance of the area and has found talking to the police chief that there have been less problems since Mr. Hall assumed ownership. He wants to regulate the lingerie shows, but wants to see Mr. Hall's business remain in competition with other businesses. He also favored the double transparency. Motion ( Neisen) To amend Section "G" of the proposed ordinance that a transparent covering be allowed for the breast, but requiring opaque covering for the pubic area with a stage placed at least three feet away from any customers. There was no second to the motion.