Our informants have said that at a recent meeting to discuss progress toward the city’s master plan for riverfront development, 1st district councilman Dan Coffey informed those assembled that a new adult-oriented business had commenced operation in New Albany.
Tonight’s city council meeting began a few minutes ago, and obviously, I’m not in attendance. Since I have a hunch that Coffey will choose public official communication time tonight to reveal this factoid to the general public, I thought it would be courteous to allow him unfettered grandstanding time, which is why I’m waiting until now to note that the business in question appears to be located at the former Rustic Frog property by the river, just within the city limits west of the center.
It’s now called 2 Horseshoes (groan), and is being touted by its backers as a “gentleman’s club.” Based on the testimony passed on to me, it appears to fall well within the regulatory boundaries of the 7-year-old adult entertainment ordinance discussed earlier today in this space.
Live adult entertainment ordinance: The words stir passions, but is foreplay enough?
Whether any of this ultimately matters has yet to be determined. It appears that the ordinance itself is undergoing scrutiny by the city attorney – at this late date, all these years after it was written into law.
Don't get me wrong. I personally haven’t the slightest interest in business models like a pole dancing emporium, primarily because I know that tackiness is an intrinsic American phenomenon, and as such, incapable of being eradicated. Suckers are born every minute, and so are morons. But, to me, it’s just another example of the city’s own laws being selectively enforced, and to the detriment of efforts to pull this backwater out of the Dark Ages.
Just once, it would be nice to be proven wrong on this point.
Alas, we haven’t been. Perhaps ROCK can arrange a Biblical flood to achieve what mere mortals apparently cannot. Until then, hypocrisy remains the order of the day in NA.
Sad to say Dan said nary a word about this issue between gavels.
ReplyDeleteHowever I approached him prior to the meeting to confirm that such had been passed in 2001.
He replied in the afirmative and I went on to inform him that rather than being enforced it is firmly ensconced on the city attorney's desk awaiting a rewrite.
At that he shook his head and sighed.
As luck would have it, Shane Gibson was present so I approached him to enquire as to the why's & wherefore's.
He responded that on review of the ordinance it had been determined that in part, the fee schedule would not hold up in court.
That conclusion was based on similar attempts by surrounding communities that had previously failed to pass muster.
I passed that information along to CM Coffey after the meeting.
His reponse was that wasn't the administrations shot to call. Enforcement should be attempted and if it failed the council would then address it!
As to the rest of the meeting, the mayor (oops!) I mean Deputy Mayor Malysz reported that based in part on the work of the Council's Committee on housing, the administration had a (another) plan in the works to deal with code enforcement.
He further stated that said plan would be revealed in the near future as per Mayor England. No further details were offered.
Following that the Council buzzed through right thru "Floyd County All Hazards Mitigation Plan", a variety of annexation & tax abatement resolutions as well as the Tourim Fund Revenue Bond.
Then came the real entertainment for the evening ie; final passage of the 2009 budget matters.
There were three seperate ordinances pertaining to 2009 salaries for various depatrments.
Prior to the vote all three of them were ammended to reflect even further cuts in dollars even though all departments had met the request of the Council since the last meeting.
After the ammendments were passed 8-0 on the final vote CM's Price & Zurschmeide still voted NO on the final version. I suppose the cuts weren't still deep enough to satisfy them.
The one that still boggles the mind however is how the $6800 that was trimmed from the City Clerks budget ended up being added to the Common Councils budget.
The explanation I got from Kay Garry was that the Council had already trimmed $20k from their bottom line and needed the boost.
I ain't buying it but there it is.
It should be noted that the 5th District Councilwoman was not present this evening.
Ah, another feather of fine culture brought to our fair city, and yet somehow I feel left out, as another "adult entertainment" venue opens in the district of, and under the watchful eyes of that districts representative in the hallowed halls of the city council...
ReplyDeleteWhen will council members be pro-active, and not reactive?
wasnt there once a saying that mentioned something about an ounce of prevention?
Well, I guess thats one way to get people to stop in New Albany going to and coming from the boat! Are we going to have a big flashing Girls, Girls, Girls sign on 111?
ReplyDeleteI probably should not ask this but what the hell.
ReplyDeleteAnybody know who the owners are?
Anyone know if this place has a liquor license? Is that addressed in the ordinance? I am sure Mr. Gibson is all over it by now.
ReplyDeleteLooking for somewhere to have a drink? Just kidding! If they do have a license you could possibly find the owners name by going to the Indiana State licensing site, but it could be listed under a corp. or LLC.
ReplyDeleteit's people looking at naked people...
ReplyDeletejust seems weird people get all crazy about people looking at naked people, but it's ok to go buy up guns, watch violence all day and its ok..
Tommy, do you have any guns for sale? I am buying...
ReplyDeleteHighwayman has asked me to relate a couple of items from the meeting last night.
ReplyDeleteOn the Tabernacle, Mr. Malysz basically stated that they are still dealing with the insurance company. Originally, the company said they would pay no more than what the city paid for the building. Now, the company is saying they will pay to restore it to the condition right before the roof blew off. I don't remember any specific plans or timetables being mentioned.
I do find it curious that it was considered a waste of money to put a temporary covering on the building. I would think the insurance company would want to limit any further damage if they really are going to pay for a "restore".
Just a couple of procedural tidbits. Two representatives of DNA spoke during the public comment "agenda items" time period. It was not about anything on the agenda. It was about the holidays. No big deal but I have observed others being cut off by Council President Gahan and told to wait until the "non agenda item" section(at the end of the meeting).
The other procedural oddity was Mr. Gahan allowing a group representing Conforma Clad to DEFER until their agenda item came up before the Council. This is a bigger deal and one that I plan to remember.
Focus people focus!
ReplyDeleteThe point isn't whether or not to take up arms against adult entertainment.
As a good friend of mine said recently, there is no accounting for bad taste.
Rather the point of this exercise is to expose yet another instance of an ordinance that was legally passed by our council, added to the code book, and summarily ignored before the ink dried.
It may very well be that it is unconstitutional or poorly written. We know there are plenty of the latter on our books hereabouts.
But in (rare) agreement with CM Coffey, that is not the administrations decision to make.
That is why courts exist afterall.
If we don't try to enforce the laws we pass, we'll never know if they'll pass muster or not.
And in the meantime there significant $$$'s in fees laying on the table that could be in use to ease our budget woes.
Oh and did I mention :"IT'S THE LAW"??
Yes, Chad and Daniel, it does have a license, and it is listed with the state of Indiana's permit search function.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.in.gov/apps/atc/permit/search/loadLiquorPermit.action?id=129319
Name:JOHN M. MATTINGLY
Status:Active
DBA:RUSTIC FROG
Permit Type:210 Restaurant
Permit Number:RR2211352
Address:1720 OLD RIVER RD
City, State, ZIP:New Albany, IN 47150
County:Floyd
Jurisdiction:NEW ALBANY
Hearing Date:11/07/2008 01:00 PM
Expiration Date:12/16/2008
Extension Expiration Date: Owner:JOHN M. MATTINGLY Stockholders:0
President:
Secretary:
So Roger, Is this the same owner changing from a Bar/Restaurant to strip club or has he just not transfered the Liquor Lic. yet? I don't plan on taking up arms against them or anything, just curious.
ReplyDeleteMy educated guess is that nothing has changed in terms of ownership, and that it's just a new concept using the same license. I may be wrong, but I don't think there's anything in the alcohol law playbook that says you must rejig the permit if you have dancers.
ReplyDeleteIf people opposed to the dancers knew what was coming, they could attend the local board hearing and protest, perhaps swaying the awarding or renewal. It appears in this case that the annual hearing occurred slightly before the opening of the remodeled establishment. Fairly shrewd, in my book.
Mark, why was a local company deferring comment to when their agenda item actually came up such a big deal? From my understanding, the group was heavily applauded for their technology and decision to stay in NA instead of moving to new digs in Jeffersonville.
ReplyDeleteEveryone knows that West Main and beyond is the Porn District. From the looks of things, you'd think the City was trying to attract more of the same. Mission accomplished.
ReplyDeleteBut in (rare) agreement with CM Coffey, that is not the administrations decision to make.
ReplyDeleteThat is why courts exist afterall.
Sorry, Lloyd. While I agree with the overall gist of your comment, I disagree with that part. Any attorney doing their job is going to consider whether a case is worth pursuing or not and advise their clients accordingly before they spend the time and money to pursue it.
A part of Shane's job in this case is to decide if there's a legitimate chance of winning. It's imperfect and sometimes ugly but true nonetheless.
The previous adult DVD store case is a prime example of that. The council was advised that they had no plausible case and pushed forward anyway, wasting tens of thousands of dollars. We gave them hell for it, and justifiably so.
The key point here is not whether the City blindly charges forward but the components of the decision making process. Because of personal ties between the administration and the club owner, I totally agree that scrutiny of that process should be even more stringent than usual, perhaps including outside, independent counsel - even if it's not initiated by the City.
According to a newspaper account from 2001 (thanks Lloyd), then-city attorney Keith Henderson wrote the adult entertainment ordinance at the behest of Mayor Overton, but only after seeking models from other cities, including Jeffersonville.
ReplyDeleteThen-council president Slippery Larry rammed it through, so to speak.
And there, with the citizenry duly protected from its own worst instincts, the ordinance sat until now. Perhaps the feeling was that if we actually had a commission to hear applications, some one might actually apply ... and then what?
I suppose my question is this: Where does the prosecutor come into the picture? He's the one who wrote the ordinance. Does it end there?
It sounds as though the City never implemented the system laid out by law. Can someone be held accountable for not seeking the approval of a commission that doesn't exist?
ReplyDeletePossible:
No one currently in a position of authority knew about the law. We'll correct it from here but Mr. Mattingly's establishment will be allowed to stand because the process wasn't in place until after the fact.
It's looking like a game of who knew what when.
It doesn't matter who wrote it. You could have written it. Once the Council passes it, it becomes just like any other law.
ReplyDelete@Bluegill - nailed it. Coffey's technically correct, but the City Attorney has to weigh the legal strategy. It impacts strategy whether the potential defendants have a viable constitutional challenge against the ordinance.
OK! I guess my question is why with two city paid attorneys on the job, why is it that no catches any of this until after the fact?
ReplyDeleteDoes any elected/appointed official have any concept of their job paramenters??
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteThis would be so much easier if you just came to some meetings and read a little closer. And, perhaps, if wrote a little clearer.
Did I not mention procedural? Other interested parties have not been allowed to DEFER in practically any case that I have witnessed. Citizens who sign up to speak on agenda items have had to speak to speak before any of those items come up. It has nothing to do with the merits of Conforma Clad.
Actually, I think it is better to be able to make comments at the time an action actually comes up and that is why I am going to remember what was allowed last night.
Your information is correct. Conforma Clad was heartily applauded for their decision to stay in NA. I applauded too.
I'm prepared to defend Mattingly, et al, when it comes to the choice of "adult-oriented" business niche, even if I find it insulting personally. If bad taste were illegal, we'd have no country.
ReplyDeleteI'll tolerate Mattingly, et al, insofar as the strategy has been clever.
I find it both ironic and annoying that while Mayor England does lip service to the concept of ordinance enforcement, one of his friends illustrates how hollow all of it remains.
Ok Mark, I was just clarifying. Roger, does your attitude in this instance resemble the old adage of "I don't agree with anything you say, but I will vigorously defend your right to say it" ?
ReplyDeleteDaniel,
ReplyDeleteSorry if I came off "short". I've just seen so many people frustrated because they are called "out of order" and gaveled down. In some cases, they are even removed from meetings, all based on the inconsistent rulings of the Council President. Some of these people I know, most I don't.
There will be time when, as a citizen, that I will wish to comment on an agenda item. We'll see if I am allowed to defer my comments until the item comes up.
Roger, does your attitude in this instance resemble the old adage of "I don't agree with anything you say, but I will vigorously defend your right to say it"?
ReplyDeleteIt is rather difficult to imagine that John Mattingly would undertake a "high-profile" project with the enormous potential to embarrass the current administration without having had some tacit variety of green light given from on high.
(If he did, we can conclude that he's no longer an ally of the mayor, because it's the sort of thing you spring on enem ies, not friends).
Doing what Mattingly's doing with the establishment reinforces a slew of negative, underachieving stereotypes that New Albany must already bear.
It puts the lie to city hall's protests of interest in ordinance enforcement.
It's a thumb in the nose of every well-intentioned and progressive redevelopment effort, especially the YMCA that just opened.
It renews every one of the old saws about his role in the mayor's political career.
It looks bad in just about every way imaginable.
And yet, in this instance, with teeth clenched so tight that it gives me a migraine ... yes, I'll defend his right to be tacky.
What I won't do is support his effort to be any less regulated than my business is, and in the end, that's the significance of the 2001 ordinance, which obviously was written by ham-fisted zealots to be draconian and to impose so many roadblocks for such a business that none could open.
Convsersely, the terms might be reasonable AND enforced, in whch case the city would enjoy permit revenue from the Mattinglys of the world.
That's the part we never seem to figure out.
Perhaps we could borrow another adage from a "Hooter's" T-shirt...."New Albany, delightfully tacky, yet unrefined." If England uses that for a campaign slogan, can I receive royalties?
ReplyDeleteBetter yet, New Albany- Not just B**BS and A$$es in government anymore!
ReplyDeleteI like that one, Chad.
ReplyDeleteExcellent Chad!
ReplyDeleteThanx! New Slogan for ROCK maybe!
ReplyDelete