By request: Further non-boring discussion about strippers.

Yesterday, almost two weeks after NAC broke the II Horseshoes strip club story and examined the contents of the seven-year-old ordinance that supposedly regulates economic development of this sordid variety, the Tribune provided City Hall with a de facto forum to declare its impotence when it comes to enforcement of its own laws.

Is there a type of Viagra to assist in this sort of dysfunction? Stupid question, I suppose, considering that we wouldn't be able to afford it even if Steve Price didn't vote against it.

Strip club doesn’t meet New Albany city ordinance, by Daniel Suddeath.

… (New Albany City Councilman Dan) Coffey figured he would know about II Horseshoes Gentleman’s Club, which opened two weeks ago at 1720 Old River Road, since a 2001 ordinance passed by the council
requires adult entertainment clubs to pay heavy fees to locate in the city.

“Something like this doesn’t happen without somebody knowing about it,” he said.

City Attorney Shane Gibson does know about it, but said the standing ordinance would likely fail in court if the city attempts to enforce it …

… Gibson said the ordinance was patterned after laws from other cities. The only problem is many of those cities have lost court cases trying to
uphold those measures, according to Gibson.

“I think most people who would look at the ordinance would say it clearly restricts freedom of speech,” Gibson said, adding he consulted other legal experts about the ordinance before deciding not to pursue the fees from II Horseshoes.

Gibson believes there are 10 areas in the ordinance that wouldn’t be upheld by courts. He said in tough economic times for the city, risking losing money in a shaky legal case wouldn’t be wise.

Attorney Gibson’s reasoning is impeccable within the constraining framework of the city’s traditional mantra of despair in the face of heavy lifting.

When your civic motto is, “we can’t,” it makes perfect sense for common councilmen to write an unenforceable, perhaps unconstitutional law, then for all to obliviously sit tight for as long as it takes for an enterprising individual or company to learn that it’s little more than shadow puppetry, and to violate it with impunity.

To do otherwise would come dangerously close to the quality widely known as “pro-active,” which was banned from the city limits of the Open Air Museum at some point prior to the Civil War. The disgraced Millard Fillmore may have had some role in it ... or was that Aaron Burr?

What has yet to be explained in this latest sad episode of jaw-dropping municipal flaccidity is how the II Horseshoes case came to land atop the city attorney’s desk in the first place.

Understanding that no one wants to make this point aloud, but persisting in the belief that transparency in the best policy in the arena of governance -- especially coming from an administration that the author supports -- permit me to note that until this chronology is explicated, there remains the appearance that the longtime friendship and political alliance between Mayor England and the club’s ownership had something to do with the ordinance’s vetting prior to any effort at compliance.

There’s probably nothing to it, right? But for the sake of honesty and communication, wouldn’t it be better to acknowledge the awkward nature of the situation, and aggressively head off the criticism rather than permit blogs and the local newspaper to expose it for you?

Pro-active. Transparent. Communicative.

Is it really something in the water hereabouts that suppresses the gag reflex at times like this?

---

Previously at NAC:

Did he do it? Can they do it? Do it to us one more time?

Live adult entertainment ordinance: The words stir passions, but is foreplay enough?