HomeMy WebLinkAboutgr00090_000031_pg033-3-
Andy DeGross, owner of Long Lake "66" suggested that the police ask owners
to clean up their premises.
Mayor Neisen stated that what was needed was an ordinance with some meat in
it.
MSP (Johnson - Pickar) To adjourn the hearing at 9:24 P.M. 4 Ayes
Council decided that they were unable to reach any agreement regarding this
problem and informed everyone in the audience that they would be notified at
least two weeks prior to the adoption of any proposed change in the ordinance
if such change took place,
Mayor Neisen called the hearing to consider amending Chapter #100 of the
Municipal Code to order at 9:25 P.M.
Attorney Meyers read the proposed amendment which dealt with the regulation
of obscene or immoral activities which are conducted on premises licensed
to sell intoxicating liquor. The ordinance was a direct attempt to control
lingerie shows. Attorney Meyers stated that the language for the proposed
ordinance amendment came from the California Supreme Court ruling of LaRue
versus California, December 5, 1972. He stated that the regulated acts could
be viewed, and upon complaint and proof, the liquor license could be suspended
or revoked. Furthermore, that a liquor license is not a vested right but a
privilege, and an attempt to control obscene activities that occur in an
establishment that serve intoxicating liquor is both reasonable and enforceable.
A gentleman, (who refused to give his name), inquired as to whether or not
a woman that was bra -less would be regulated. The answer was "no ", as long
as she was covered. Mr. Anthony Donatelle asked, if bra and panties were
worn by a girl, if it was okay. The reply was that this was not illegal by
this ordinance, provided the parts mentioned were not displayed.
Mr. Charles Hall, owner of the Mermaid stated that he has seven lingerie
shows per week, and that in order to make his business successful, he has
to draw business outside of Mounds View. He said that models represent about
1/6 of his business volume. Over 8,000 persons per month go through the
Mermaid. He did not find objections to the Council requiring that dancing be
performed on stage, but asked that transparent or opaque covering be allowed
for the top and bottom rather than requiring only opaque covering. He added
that everyone in the establishment was of legal age and that the show was a
well run operation. His business has increased over 70% since May 1, 1972 when
he obtained ownership. And, he needs to remain competitive with St. Paul or
his business volume will decrease. He declared that the police chief has
said there have been few problems at the Mermaid since he assumed ownership.
Jack Wallace, counsel for the Mermaid said that he had attended two shows at
the Mermaid. He did agree with Attorney Meyers general conclusion on the
Villages regulatory powers. However, he added that he has been at other bars
where persons are more discourteous and the language has been worse. He felt
that the lingerie show had a quieting effect; that the men were controlled.