Laserfiche WebLink
-3- <br /> Elie Dubay, 3012 32nd Avenue N.E. , complimented the. Planning Commission <br /> • on the questions -they had raised regarding the video store operation <br /> and "their prior record of providing for the betterment of the <br /> community" . He saw a precedent being set by the City in the instance <br /> of the print shop and was. certain. "the City. would, and rightfully <br /> so, prevent him from erecting a- pole building in his backyard because <br /> it would be detrimental to -the .neighborhood" . His experience with <br /> the precinct caucus convinced him that the people of St. Anthony <br /> are concerned how their tax monies are spent and believed the <br /> expenditure of funds to pass this ordinance and the increased law <br /> enforcement costs he -saw connected to the store as "bad money spending <br /> and- bad news for the children of the community" . The Chairman told <br /> Mr. Dubay the City Attorney has estimated it will cost money no <br /> matter which way the decision goes. <br /> Mr. Berg stated he was not advocating obscenity but again emphasized <br /> the importance of differentiating between the video. sales and rentals <br /> and speculation as to what type of materials will, in fact, be <br /> distributed. <br /> Charlotte Olson, 3412 Skycroft Drive N.E. , inquired whether the <br /> proprietor of the store in question had been asked whether he was <br /> dealing in obscene materials and Mr. . Berg said the - owner had been <br /> contacted and said he would sell no x-rated materials at the store , <br /> except by -catalog, with home mail delivery. Mrs. Olson said she <br /> had observed the "Adult Store' s" operation and noted the only <br /> • customers were "young men viewing a -film in a back corner" . She was <br /> concerned about having this type of store in a center which is <br /> frequented by young families and wondered why "we'd even consider a <br /> conditional use permit for this operation" . She read from a paper <br /> (she did .not identify)_ which claimed the Supreme Court decision in <br /> 1973 , by 5 to 4, ruled "obscenity is not approved by the First Amend- <br /> ment to the Constitution" . She *saw this store as both harmful to the <br /> City' s quality of life and to the total community environment. She <br /> insisted there is no scientific evidence required to prove obscene <br /> material causes crime and was concerned that, under the prevailing <br /> high school policy, the materials distributed through this store <br /> will find their way into the schools for discussion. She concluded <br /> by saying "It is easier to stop it now than later" . , which drew <br /> loud applause from those present. <br /> Bob Lohman, 2512 St. Anthony Road, "a long time resident who runs a <br /> men's clothing store on Central" told .of the success citizen pressure <br /> on the business community along with police harassment had in getting <br /> rid of a "head shop" and "Adult Book Store" near his store. He <br /> suggested the same pressure be put -on Apache merchants and management. <br /> Mr. Berg reiterated that the type of materials sold in the store <br /> should be a separate issue from the amendment. but also said the Center <br /> landlord was against the sale of such materials which the store <br /> proprietor also insists are not being sold. <br /> Mr. Sopcinski wondered why "when everyone is against such an operation, <br /> they do such a thriving business?" . He saw- it as up to:_the citizens <br /> to put the pressure on the business community and to organize a boycott <br />