NPN’s friends in City Hall in their Memorandum dated October 12, 2006 made official factual findings that where the interior display area of adult content is restricted to 1,000 sq. feet or less that there are no adverse secondary effects caused. See the Memorandum again incorporated into TBN’s “The City’s Justification” post at
http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/10/citys-justification.html. Yet, NPN continues to rant on and on that the Cap Video store will cause the feared secondary effects.
Gee, may be because one (size) has little to do with the other (secondary effects)? NPN may be onto something... :)
Yours/AC
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Friday, December 15, 2006
The Law of Unintended Consequences Strikes Back!
Last night the Planning Board considered Cap Video’s site plan. So as to avoid any legal grounds for its submission to be denied, Cap Video naturally submitted the bare minimum necessary. Well, almost. It did submit a photo of that naughty bondage store front display from one of its other stores.
After the board and the public made it became clear that the photo was not helpful to its cause, Cap Video withdrew the photo as part of its submission, and submitted an oral representation that it would abide by the Victoria Secret standard. NPN will have to write to Victoria Secret and find out what that is! But we've all seen the store fronts in malls across the country. (I noticed the scantily clad and suggestive, but tasteful, dress of the manikins in the Fredricks of Hollywood store front tonight at the Ingleside Mall.)
Many of the board members were clearly uncomfortable finding the site plan acceptable, but they did do their duty, as they were constrained to do, and I commend them for that. With the window display withdrawn, the plan clearly complied with the legal requirements, including the 1,000 square ft. rule.
At the meeting, it quickly dawned upon them, and the public, that the passage of the anti-porn zoning ordinances this fall was a waste of valuable time and effort on the part of the City. Instead of focusing on the content of the wares to be sold in the privacy of the store, the City could have and should have instead focused on passing measures more specifically aimed at up scaling that area of King Street and other external concerns, as I urged it to do.
But this last fall and summer the City was driven by the stridently intolerant no-porn cabal lead by NPN and so it focused on measures based upon content and not the specific potential secondary effects external to the store we all sought to prevent. I'm sorry that it did not.
Yours/AC
After the board and the public made it became clear that the photo was not helpful to its cause, Cap Video withdrew the photo as part of its submission, and submitted an oral representation that it would abide by the Victoria Secret standard. NPN will have to write to Victoria Secret and find out what that is! But we've all seen the store fronts in malls across the country. (I noticed the scantily clad and suggestive, but tasteful, dress of the manikins in the Fredricks of Hollywood store front tonight at the Ingleside Mall.)
Many of the board members were clearly uncomfortable finding the site plan acceptable, but they did do their duty, as they were constrained to do, and I commend them for that. With the window display withdrawn, the plan clearly complied with the legal requirements, including the 1,000 square ft. rule.
At the meeting, it quickly dawned upon them, and the public, that the passage of the anti-porn zoning ordinances this fall was a waste of valuable time and effort on the part of the City. Instead of focusing on the content of the wares to be sold in the privacy of the store, the City could have and should have instead focused on passing measures more specifically aimed at up scaling that area of King Street and other external concerns, as I urged it to do.
But this last fall and summer the City was driven by the stridently intolerant no-porn cabal lead by NPN and so it focused on measures based upon content and not the specific potential secondary effects external to the store we all sought to prevent. I'm sorry that it did not.
Yours/AC
Thursday, December 14, 2006
NPN: Repeal the First Amendment
I don't know why NPN in its post today tries to make Michael Pill's history as a lawyer relevant. When in the business of representing clients in adversarial proceedings, lawyers are civil mercenaries; over the course of an entire career, it’s not uncommon for them to be found representing different clients with inconsistent points of view.
Our freedom of speech may not be absolute, as nothing is, but because freedom of speech is a constitutional right, when we put it into the scale of conflicting rights and interests, it ought to be given significantly more weight than non-constitutional rights and interests.
NPN needs to reconcile itself to the truth of its position which in effect means our right to free speech should not be a constitutional right, and honestly admit that it would have us repeal the first amendment. It would be a compassionate step on their part; NPN's denial of the truth hurts us all, including themselves, very deeply.
Our freedom of speech may not be absolute, as nothing is, but because freedom of speech is a constitutional right, when we put it into the scale of conflicting rights and interests, it ought to be given significantly more weight than non-constitutional rights and interests.
NPN needs to reconcile itself to the truth of its position which in effect means our right to free speech should not be a constitutional right, and honestly admit that it would have us repeal the first amendment. It would be a compassionate step on their part; NPN's denial of the truth hurts us all, including themselves, very deeply.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Child Pornography & The Ames Letter
Editor's note: I posted the following comment to the letter to the Editor published today (December 13, 2006) by the Hampshire Gazette. Bill Ames, a respected former educator (and city council member?) wrote with respect to the recent news that police had busted Ron Garney for the possession of child pornography in his home. Bill questioned whether or not it the mere possession and viewing of child pornography in the our own homes justifies the government’s intrusion into our privacy. In other words, whether or not it should be criminal to possess and view child pornography in the privacy of our own homes, for if it was not criminal, then the government’s prosecutorial power to conduct such “search and seizure” missions would be unjustified.
I believe the production of child porn should be illegal. As much as I disagree with society’s obsession with protecting children these days, I do agree children that young are bereft of the exposure and life experience (and rights, even if they do have the exposure and life experience) necessary for them to have a meaningful choice in the matter of being involved in the production of pornography.
But I commend Bill Ames for his courage to speak out. Historically, we might be surprised to learn how much in other societies, from the Greek and Roman to whatever, sex with and between minors (and related pornographic imagery) was accepted as perfectly legitimate. So, too, was gladiator fights, etc.
There seems to be a lot of debate about whether or not violence in movies, television, video games, etc. causes more violence. There are also websites where for free or for a fee I can see graphic images of actual beheadings. For example, go the website for radio jockey, Michael Savage, at
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html. The “actors” in the actual beheadings no doubt have been abused and their participation is involuntary. So, there are a lot of abusive “productions” - both commercial and non-commercial – that we are free to view in the privacy of our homes. Undeniably, they espouse and celebrate social and political ideas and viewpoints that are highly offensive and threatening, just like child pornography does, but they are ideas and viewpoints of a social and political nature, qualifying for first amendment protection.
This morning I happened to be in a conversation with a dyed in the wool, politically correct feminist lawyer and a news reporter. Perhaps it should not have come to me as a surprise, but it did, that both of them believed it wrong to criminalize the mere possession of and viewing of child pornography in the privacy of one’s own home, however sick and abhorrent it seemed to all of us.
Bill, you are not alone.
Yours/AC
I believe the production of child porn should be illegal. As much as I disagree with society’s obsession with protecting children these days, I do agree children that young are bereft of the exposure and life experience (and rights, even if they do have the exposure and life experience) necessary for them to have a meaningful choice in the matter of being involved in the production of pornography.
But I commend Bill Ames for his courage to speak out. Historically, we might be surprised to learn how much in other societies, from the Greek and Roman to whatever, sex with and between minors (and related pornographic imagery) was accepted as perfectly legitimate. So, too, was gladiator fights, etc.
There seems to be a lot of debate about whether or not violence in movies, television, video games, etc. causes more violence. There are also websites where for free or for a fee I can see graphic images of actual beheadings. For example, go the website for radio jockey, Michael Savage, at
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html. The “actors” in the actual beheadings no doubt have been abused and their participation is involuntary. So, there are a lot of abusive “productions” - both commercial and non-commercial – that we are free to view in the privacy of our homes. Undeniably, they espouse and celebrate social and political ideas and viewpoints that are highly offensive and threatening, just like child pornography does, but they are ideas and viewpoints of a social and political nature, qualifying for first amendment protection.
This morning I happened to be in a conversation with a dyed in the wool, politically correct feminist lawyer and a news reporter. Perhaps it should not have come to me as a surprise, but it did, that both of them believed it wrong to criminalize the mere possession of and viewing of child pornography in the privacy of one’s own home, however sick and abhorrent it seemed to all of us.
Bill, you are not alone.
Yours/AC
Why We Protect Porn & The Alameda Books Case
I was amused a while back on 11-30-06 when NPN posted its missive, “US Supreme Court Sets Reasonable Guidelines for Adult-Use Zoning in City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books (2002).” While no justice would say they were retreating from the leading City of Renton opinion, Alameda Books has proven to be the beginning of the end of the Renton opinion in many of the federal circuit of appeals courts, as explained below.
First, to NPN’s credit, NPN did not edit out the most important part of the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in the Alameda case which modified and eroded, in effect, the controlling Renton opinion. Now a city enjoys merely a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness in passing a no porn zoning law; the aggrieved retailer of sexual content can now come forward with evidence rebutting a city's presumptions about secondary effects and prevail. As its states:
"This is not to say that a municipality can get away with shoddy data or reasoning. The municipality's evidence must fairly support the municipality's rationale for its ordinance. If plaintiffs fail to cast direct doubt on this rationale, either by 'demonstrating that the municipality's evidence does not support its rationale or by furnishing evidence that disputes the municipality's factual findings, the municipality meets the standard set forth in Renton."
I cited a few of the cases where the plaintiff has in fact succeeded pursuant to the Alameda decision in my blog at http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/10/constitutional-zoning-law-secondary.html.
Second, nonetheless, I think the majority opinion is Alameda was wrong to equate the private display and sale of sexually explicit expression with captive audience billboards and non-speech industrial factory activity, without requiring more from a city to justify a prior restraint upon, that is banishment of, constitutionally protected expression.
After all, should not our constitutional rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights be treated as more important than rights that are not? To be sure, the private consumption of sexually explicit expression is far less important to many, if not most, of the public than other rights which do not enjoy constitutional protection. Typically, sexually explicit materials express and celebrate points of view about what are acceptable manners to behave that are very contrary to the values and morals upon which our Judeo-Christian society rests. And in graphic form its very powerful expression. After all, "a picture is worth a thousand words." This powerful combination is therefore very threatening. But so are many other points of view, such as those shared by Islamic fundamentalists.
Third, the majority opinion in Alameda soft peddles the issue of whether or not sexually explicit material can be made and will be still readily accessible to the public in preferred forms. If the internet was an entirely satisfactory means of communicating all of the serious and not so serious intellectual material the public desires to offer and consume, then no commercially viable video and bookstores would remain downtown. But, in fact, people want and, to a significant extent, still need, the brick and motor, hard copy experience for the enjoyment of non-sexual as well as sexually explicit material. And the retailers, themselves, will testify as to how important location is; it’s critical.
So, in sum, where no captive audiences are involved, the Alameda court should have applied a strict scrutiny standard applicable to political speech, instead of the intermediate standard, in my opinion. Would it be more burdensome for cities? Sure, but not everything a city planner needs to be concerned about is enshrined in the constitution.
First, to NPN’s credit, NPN did not edit out the most important part of the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in the Alameda case which modified and eroded, in effect, the controlling Renton opinion. Now a city enjoys merely a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness in passing a no porn zoning law; the aggrieved retailer of sexual content can now come forward with evidence rebutting a city's presumptions about secondary effects and prevail. As its states:
"This is not to say that a municipality can get away with shoddy data or reasoning. The municipality's evidence must fairly support the municipality's rationale for its ordinance. If plaintiffs fail to cast direct doubt on this rationale, either by 'demonstrating that the municipality's evidence does not support its rationale or by furnishing evidence that disputes the municipality's factual findings, the municipality meets the standard set forth in Renton."
I cited a few of the cases where the plaintiff has in fact succeeded pursuant to the Alameda decision in my blog at http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/10/constitutional-zoning-law-secondary.html.
Second, nonetheless, I think the majority opinion is Alameda was wrong to equate the private display and sale of sexually explicit expression with captive audience billboards and non-speech industrial factory activity, without requiring more from a city to justify a prior restraint upon, that is banishment of, constitutionally protected expression.
After all, should not our constitutional rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights be treated as more important than rights that are not? To be sure, the private consumption of sexually explicit expression is far less important to many, if not most, of the public than other rights which do not enjoy constitutional protection. Typically, sexually explicit materials express and celebrate points of view about what are acceptable manners to behave that are very contrary to the values and morals upon which our Judeo-Christian society rests. And in graphic form its very powerful expression. After all, "a picture is worth a thousand words." This powerful combination is therefore very threatening. But so are many other points of view, such as those shared by Islamic fundamentalists.
Third, the majority opinion in Alameda soft peddles the issue of whether or not sexually explicit material can be made and will be still readily accessible to the public in preferred forms. If the internet was an entirely satisfactory means of communicating all of the serious and not so serious intellectual material the public desires to offer and consume, then no commercially viable video and bookstores would remain downtown. But, in fact, people want and, to a significant extent, still need, the brick and motor, hard copy experience for the enjoyment of non-sexual as well as sexually explicit material. And the retailers, themselves, will testify as to how important location is; it’s critical.
So, in sum, where no captive audiences are involved, the Alameda court should have applied a strict scrutiny standard applicable to political speech, instead of the intermediate standard, in my opinion. Would it be more burdensome for cities? Sure, but not everything a city planner needs to be concerned about is enshrined in the constitution.
More On Moslem Zoning – Texas Style
Most of the comments made in response to the “Moslem Zoning” satire I posted (see the post under the “lighter side”) were negative because they did not see apparently the connection between freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I was surprised because no less than four people reviewed it prior to its publication. Among the pre-publication reviewers were an attorney who favored the zoning measure, a PhD and a journalism student. All of them saw the parallels I drew between City’s proposal to effectively zone out of town offensive sexual expression and, in the satire, the City’s proposal to effectively zone out of town offensive religious expression.
To me, it is all too obvious that free speech is intertwined with other issues, such as cultural and religious issues. When we feel a speaker should not be allowed to express a point of view in the manner he or she is fit to express it, either because it is not politically correct, appropriate, or too controversial we are limiting the debate coercively, rather than through argument, that is, reason.
After I published the Moslem zoning satire, however, another friend explained to me that the connection between freedom of religion and freedom of speech is not as self-evident to most people as it is to me. I should have explained that because the communication of ideas is an important part of the free exercise of just about any religion so too then is the unabridged freedom to express those ideas, however offensive and dangerous. And there is little doubt that radical Islamic fundamentalism espouses many ideas, often very graphically, that many in western culture find abhorrent, including very much myself.
Both pornographic and radical Islamic (and Christian) fundamentalist expression and practice are very offensive and threatening to many of us and merit our concern and criticism. The difference here is merely that censorship of sexually liberated heterosexual citizens is fashionable, but censorship of “oppressed” Moslems is not, particularly in politically correct Northampton. Some people have even speculated, albeit wrongfully, I believe, that anti-porn Noho feminists would conspire with radical Islamic extremists to ban exhibition of women’s bodies behind Muslim Sharia Law veils and scarfs.
So, freedom of religion is very much dependant upon freedom of speech, and attacks upon one often resemble the attacks upon the other. Just the other day, for example, I noticed a headline, “Residents use pig races to deter building of mosque.” The complaints and ostensive “concerns” of near by residents in that Texas town cited in the article echoed many of the complaints and concerns voiced by NPN and its supporters:
“ ‘Its not an appropriate place to have a [porn shop] … As a house of [sexually explicit material], they shouldn’t be disturbing the peach and tranquility of 15 homes’ … Neighbors tell us they’re concerned about traffic …” and no doubt about the people who will be working and visiting the mosque, which will also include a gym and school. Imagine the stuff they may be viewing and teaching there. Who knows what may happen if those ignorant murderous misogynous Moslems get to your kids!
One neighbor’s proposed solution in that Texas town was to hold Friday night pig races next to the mosque. In our case, we may lament “if only the City had such imagination.” But evidently, when dealing with the potential secondary effects of pornography, City Hall did not.
You might still be able to view the article at http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=4808968&ft=print.
Yours/AC
To me, it is all too obvious that free speech is intertwined with other issues, such as cultural and religious issues. When we feel a speaker should not be allowed to express a point of view in the manner he or she is fit to express it, either because it is not politically correct, appropriate, or too controversial we are limiting the debate coercively, rather than through argument, that is, reason.
After I published the Moslem zoning satire, however, another friend explained to me that the connection between freedom of religion and freedom of speech is not as self-evident to most people as it is to me. I should have explained that because the communication of ideas is an important part of the free exercise of just about any religion so too then is the unabridged freedom to express those ideas, however offensive and dangerous. And there is little doubt that radical Islamic fundamentalism espouses many ideas, often very graphically, that many in western culture find abhorrent, including very much myself.
Both pornographic and radical Islamic (and Christian) fundamentalist expression and practice are very offensive and threatening to many of us and merit our concern and criticism. The difference here is merely that censorship of sexually liberated heterosexual citizens is fashionable, but censorship of “oppressed” Moslems is not, particularly in politically correct Northampton. Some people have even speculated, albeit wrongfully, I believe, that anti-porn Noho feminists would conspire with radical Islamic extremists to ban exhibition of women’s bodies behind Muslim Sharia Law veils and scarfs.
So, freedom of religion is very much dependant upon freedom of speech, and attacks upon one often resemble the attacks upon the other. Just the other day, for example, I noticed a headline, “Residents use pig races to deter building of mosque.” The complaints and ostensive “concerns” of near by residents in that Texas town cited in the article echoed many of the complaints and concerns voiced by NPN and its supporters:
“ ‘Its not an appropriate place to have a [porn shop] … As a house of [sexually explicit material], they shouldn’t be disturbing the peach and tranquility of 15 homes’ … Neighbors tell us they’re concerned about traffic …” and no doubt about the people who will be working and visiting the mosque, which will also include a gym and school. Imagine the stuff they may be viewing and teaching there. Who knows what may happen if those ignorant murderous misogynous Moslems get to your kids!
One neighbor’s proposed solution in that Texas town was to hold Friday night pig races next to the mosque. In our case, we may lament “if only the City had such imagination.” But evidently, when dealing with the potential secondary effects of pornography, City Hall did not.
You might still be able to view the article at http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=4808968&ft=print.
Yours/AC
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
NPN’s Store Front Shocker!
Editor’s note: In NPN’s recent post about Cap Video’s plans for its storefront NPN takes to task Cap Video. NPN suggests that the store front plans are prohibited because of their darker sexually suggestive nature, among other things, which NPN contends conflicts with Cap Video’s prior representations. The "plans" were photos taken of a Cap Video store front at another location. Having had conversations with the General Counsel for Cap Video I was disappointed by the plans but not surprised. The following subsequent dialogue I (A.C.) had with NPN explains why.
AC:
As for the store front and signage, I’m afraid Cap Video may not see any point in trying to improve upon their other store fronts when it appears they would never be accepted by NPN et al. no matter what they did or do, so why invest in making the effort? Your alienating attitude toward Cap Video made it abundantly clear that Cap Video would not be accepted under any circumstances. … or … Could you ever accept them and let them be, as you do others who sell sexually explicit materials? As for the inside of the store, Cap Video said they would comply with the zoning ordinance and the plan indicates that they will by condensing all of the adult material together into one compressed section…As for parking, I really don’t see how anyone at this point can say there is any reason to believe it will be more of a problem for a Cap Video store than the A to Z children’s store just down the street… And is the signage of the auto body shops, hardware and etc., stores in the surrounding neighborhood more artful than the signage Cap Video seemingly intends to use?As for noise, lighting, etc., first, while I share these concerns, I do not know if the City can legally consider these factors. Second, if not, amelioration of the potential secondary effects by examining such measures should have been the focus of the City’s efforts over this past many months, rather than attempting to zone the store out of town based upon the content of the wares sold inside.This is what I urged the City to do, but to no avail, no thanks to you NPN. So, after the courts have ruled on all this, if we end up stuck with an ugly Cap Video store at that location, the City probably has no one to blame more than you.
NPN:
While Capital Video may not have a legal obligation to have a tasteful appearance, they did promise it. They have now gone back on that promise in a big way, reinforcing our opinion that they are not to be trusted.If the people could trust adult enterprises to locate in reasonable places, not endanger public health, and respect community opinion, there wouldn't be such a need for adult-use zoning, would there? …It's true that we will always object to films … We are also critical of companies that profit from portraying …
We might not be able to achieve all our desires in a short period, so we strive to secure as much benefit for Northampton as we can at each point.For months we've been hearing a lot from you about the merits of First Amendment-safe urban planning that will meet the needs of the community. Have you come up with any specific recommendations or examples?
AC:
Examples and recommendations? I’ve made a number of suggestions and you know it, NPN. So why do you raise the question but to infer that I have not? These suggestions were made in posts I made to the talkbacknorthampton blog site. See, e.g., http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/10/talkbacknorthampton-presents-real.html, and http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/10/real-evil.html.
First, you maintain the intellectually dishonest position of claiming you support free speech while being entirely intolerant of the private communication of speech you find offensive; second, you made unfounded accusations that Andrew Shelffo had been secretly compensated by Cap Video to switch his position; and now, third, you accuse me of never making any alternative suggestions to the zoning ordinance? How deceptively disrespectfully low will you, NPN, go? …
Reasonable places? Yes, as far as I am concerned every neighborhood needs an adult establishment or two. In my opinion, sexual appetite and gratification should be understood as just another facet of normal and healthy living according to how we are made, and your ever increasing prudish attitude towards it is more unhealthy and unsafe for a community on balance than the proposed Cap Video store. The spirit of puritan Salem lives on …
Cap Video promises? To be sure I heard them, too. But you didn’t rest with passage of the ordinances you championed to drive them out of town. NPN et al. made it clear that NPN et al. will never tolerate them regardless of what they do. So why should they try to upscale and be more sensitive to the community’s sensitivities?
Yours/AC
TalkBackNorthampton
AC:
As for the store front and signage, I’m afraid Cap Video may not see any point in trying to improve upon their other store fronts when it appears they would never be accepted by NPN et al. no matter what they did or do, so why invest in making the effort? Your alienating attitude toward Cap Video made it abundantly clear that Cap Video would not be accepted under any circumstances. … or … Could you ever accept them and let them be, as you do others who sell sexually explicit materials? As for the inside of the store, Cap Video said they would comply with the zoning ordinance and the plan indicates that they will by condensing all of the adult material together into one compressed section…As for parking, I really don’t see how anyone at this point can say there is any reason to believe it will be more of a problem for a Cap Video store than the A to Z children’s store just down the street… And is the signage of the auto body shops, hardware and etc., stores in the surrounding neighborhood more artful than the signage Cap Video seemingly intends to use?As for noise, lighting, etc., first, while I share these concerns, I do not know if the City can legally consider these factors. Second, if not, amelioration of the potential secondary effects by examining such measures should have been the focus of the City’s efforts over this past many months, rather than attempting to zone the store out of town based upon the content of the wares sold inside.This is what I urged the City to do, but to no avail, no thanks to you NPN. So, after the courts have ruled on all this, if we end up stuck with an ugly Cap Video store at that location, the City probably has no one to blame more than you.
NPN:
While Capital Video may not have a legal obligation to have a tasteful appearance, they did promise it. They have now gone back on that promise in a big way, reinforcing our opinion that they are not to be trusted.If the people could trust adult enterprises to locate in reasonable places, not endanger public health, and respect community opinion, there wouldn't be such a need for adult-use zoning, would there? …It's true that we will always object to films … We are also critical of companies that profit from portraying …
We might not be able to achieve all our desires in a short period, so we strive to secure as much benefit for Northampton as we can at each point.For months we've been hearing a lot from you about the merits of First Amendment-safe urban planning that will meet the needs of the community. Have you come up with any specific recommendations or examples?
AC:
Examples and recommendations? I’ve made a number of suggestions and you know it, NPN. So why do you raise the question but to infer that I have not? These suggestions were made in posts I made to the talkbacknorthampton blog site. See, e.g., http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/10/talkbacknorthampton-presents-real.html, and http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/10/real-evil.html.
First, you maintain the intellectually dishonest position of claiming you support free speech while being entirely intolerant of the private communication of speech you find offensive; second, you made unfounded accusations that Andrew Shelffo had been secretly compensated by Cap Video to switch his position; and now, third, you accuse me of never making any alternative suggestions to the zoning ordinance? How deceptively disrespectfully low will you, NPN, go? …
Reasonable places? Yes, as far as I am concerned every neighborhood needs an adult establishment or two. In my opinion, sexual appetite and gratification should be understood as just another facet of normal and healthy living according to how we are made, and your ever increasing prudish attitude towards it is more unhealthy and unsafe for a community on balance than the proposed Cap Video store. The spirit of puritan Salem lives on …
Cap Video promises? To be sure I heard them, too. But you didn’t rest with passage of the ordinances you championed to drive them out of town. NPN et al. made it clear that NPN et al. will never tolerate them regardless of what they do. So why should they try to upscale and be more sensitive to the community’s sensitivities?
Yours/AC
TalkBackNorthampton
Monday, December 11, 2006
The Smut Played by Pleasant Street Theater …
Is really good. A couple of friends and I went to see the independent feature “ShortBus” at the Pleasant Street Theater last Friday night. Chock full of cocks and balls, tits, ass and pussy, male on male, female on female, male and female two-somes, three-somes and more, fighting and fucking! One fellow is even shown blowing himself and swallowing his own come. I’ve certainly never seen that before!
So, why isn’t NPN sounding the alarm and whipping up the troops to banish Pleasant Street Theater out of town? Or are they again going to be intellectually dishonest and try to distinguish this instance of grossly graphic sexual expression as their non-gratuitous “erotica” or something?
Go ahead NPN, make my day.
Yours/AC
So, why isn’t NPN sounding the alarm and whipping up the troops to banish Pleasant Street Theater out of town? Or are they again going to be intellectually dishonest and try to distinguish this instance of grossly graphic sexual expression as their non-gratuitous “erotica” or something?
Go ahead NPN, make my day.
Yours/AC
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
NPN Still Will Not Come Clean!
Editor’s note: Below is a) the response of NPN to my request that it apologize to Andrew Shelffo for insinuating that he was secretly acting on behalf of Cap Video by demanding that he declare that has not been, even though he long ago explained in public and at this blog why he changed his opinion about the anti-porn zoning ordinance that recently passed and b) my reply. See below
http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/12/what-are-doing-npn.html, and http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/12/npn-censorship-by-benign-neglect-im.html.
NPN’s Response:
Asking a journalist (even a citizen journalist) a relevant question about their motivations is just being a good investigator. By calling it "character assassination" you are discouraging free inquiry and short circuiting the feedback process between the media and the public. This does not serve free speech or quality journalism.I wasn't convinced by Andrew Shelffo's reasoning or yours about the basis for his arguments. I felt it important to press the question of a conflict of interest to get clarity on that important point.Mr. Shelffo's arrogant attitude towards our questions is not appropriate for someone who enjoys the privilege of having MassLive host their blog.
A.C.’s Reply:
Just how often are journalists put on the stand to defend their credibility without cause cited? It was not a relevant question unless NPN had a cited reason for asking Andrew in particular, as it has not questioned the integrity of anyone else in the debate, such as Bill Dwight. By not stating a reason justifying the question, NPN turned the question into an unfounded insinuation – an innuendo. It was dirty rhetorical question, and Andrew saw it for what it was.
In response to my asking NPN its reason for asking the question it claimed it just could not believe someone would change their minds after looking into the anti-porn rhetoric more critically than NPN does. Pretty lame reason. So lame that it makes me wonder if NPN really did have a valid reason to ask the question when they went after Andrew, other than to silence him by leveling upon him a personal attack. As a father of young children who disagrees with NPN’s point of view living approximately no further from the proposed Cap Video store than NPN does, for NPN he is a particularly threatening figure in the debate.
Masslive can make its own decisions as to who should have the “privilege” of being hosted by them. Who is NPN to tell Masslive who it may host? Is NPN jealous that it is not hosted by Masslive or something?
Further, NPN continues to cover up the fact that it went after Mr. Shelffo even though Andrew had explained himself weeks ago before the council and on-line at my blog. It knew or should have known as the responsible "investigative" journalists they claim to be that Andrew had long ago explained himself and there was no reason to believe he was acting on behalf of Cap Video. Yet NPN still covers up its malfeasance and pretends to be so righteous as to preach to us journalist ethics!
Congratulations, NPN, you have joined the ranks of Rush Limbaugh and the like. What next for you, a show on Fox News?
All I asked is that NPN admit that it wronged Andrew and make an apology to restore its own honor and credibility; but it refuses.
http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/12/what-are-doing-npn.html, and http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/12/npn-censorship-by-benign-neglect-im.html.
NPN’s Response:
Asking a journalist (even a citizen journalist) a relevant question about their motivations is just being a good investigator. By calling it "character assassination" you are discouraging free inquiry and short circuiting the feedback process between the media and the public. This does not serve free speech or quality journalism.I wasn't convinced by Andrew Shelffo's reasoning or yours about the basis for his arguments. I felt it important to press the question of a conflict of interest to get clarity on that important point.Mr. Shelffo's arrogant attitude towards our questions is not appropriate for someone who enjoys the privilege of having MassLive host their blog.
A.C.’s Reply:
Just how often are journalists put on the stand to defend their credibility without cause cited? It was not a relevant question unless NPN had a cited reason for asking Andrew in particular, as it has not questioned the integrity of anyone else in the debate, such as Bill Dwight. By not stating a reason justifying the question, NPN turned the question into an unfounded insinuation – an innuendo. It was dirty rhetorical question, and Andrew saw it for what it was.
In response to my asking NPN its reason for asking the question it claimed it just could not believe someone would change their minds after looking into the anti-porn rhetoric more critically than NPN does. Pretty lame reason. So lame that it makes me wonder if NPN really did have a valid reason to ask the question when they went after Andrew, other than to silence him by leveling upon him a personal attack. As a father of young children who disagrees with NPN’s point of view living approximately no further from the proposed Cap Video store than NPN does, for NPN he is a particularly threatening figure in the debate.
Masslive can make its own decisions as to who should have the “privilege” of being hosted by them. Who is NPN to tell Masslive who it may host? Is NPN jealous that it is not hosted by Masslive or something?
Further, NPN continues to cover up the fact that it went after Mr. Shelffo even though Andrew had explained himself weeks ago before the council and on-line at my blog. It knew or should have known as the responsible "investigative" journalists they claim to be that Andrew had long ago explained himself and there was no reason to believe he was acting on behalf of Cap Video. Yet NPN still covers up its malfeasance and pretends to be so righteous as to preach to us journalist ethics!
Congratulations, NPN, you have joined the ranks of Rush Limbaugh and the like. What next for you, a show on Fox News?
All I asked is that NPN admit that it wronged Andrew and make an apology to restore its own honor and credibility; but it refuses.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Friday, December 01, 2006
NPN: Censorship by Benign Neglect; I'm Back, Sadly.
I ceased contributing to the TalkBackNorthampton blog after the City Council passed the proposed zoning ordinance to banish Cap Video out of town. For better or worse, unless Cap Video complies with the regulation (which it may), the constitutional issue will be decided by the courts in due course. I also found it less than healthy for my own well being to be so wrapped up into such an acrimonious public debate for so long. Having moved here from tumultuous New York City, I had hoped enjoy the relative peace and tranquility that the Northampton area offers.
I did continue to submit comments at the NPN website from time to time, and noticed the continuation of a disturbing tendency on the part of NPN. Because NPN “moderates” submissions, the submissions typically do not appear, if at all, until long after the NPN blog entry has been featured and replaced by new material, and then only if NPN has developed a rebuttal response. So, as a practical matter few, if any, of the public will notice the submitted comments once they are posted by NPN, and only then when NPN has the last word.
The most recent example of this is when in a submission I asked NPN why they were demanding Andrew Schefflo to disclose if he had any ties to Cap Video, which was posted with their contention in response that Andrew never explained why his thinking on the issue switched. I then submitted an explanation that Andrew had in fact explained his shift in thinking when he first spoke up at a City Council meeting, and noted that I posted his comments incorporating his explanation at this blogsite not long after Andrew made them before the City Council. See http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/10/is-children-or-fear-driving-city.html.
Instead of forthwith posting this submission, which cleared up the matter and demonstrated how little attention NPN really pays to opposing points of view, NPN in the meantime instead chose to post at least three rather lengthy features to their website burying the matter of their misadventure, rather than fess up. Even more remarkable is that the last of these three posts by NPN is all about the importance of trust and transparency between bloggers and their audience!
Its is sad to see NPN first sink to the level of implicitly alleging that Andrew was connected to Cap Video without mentioning any justification for casting him in such a light, and then to bury their error with moralistic and ethical rhetoric.
There’s been nothing pornographic about the comments I have submitted; they are all within the realm of political discourse one would assume NPN believes is worthy of respect, not censorship. Nonetheless, NPN appears to be more concerned with spewing forth whatever material they can find which solely supports their viewpoints. After all, in public debate quantity of speech often trumps quality of speech. No wonder one of NPN most common arguments is that the quantity of speech they can find which supports their viewpoints, rather than the quality of such speech, far exceeds the quantity of speech in support of contrary viewpoints. But this "common sense" which they trumpet is hardly in depth and critical analysis. If “common sense” were to rule the day, the world would still be flat, and women and children - who NPN claims to be so concerned about -- would still be the chattels of men.
Its time for NPN to be honest with us -- as well as themselves, if necessary -- and fess up to the truth: they do not believe the right to free speech should be a constitutional right justifying a broad and special scope of protection, and they would have us repeal the first amendment. While this point of view may be verboten in America, internationally it would not be so controversial. Many a democracy, such as the United Kigndom, thrive without a constitutional right to free speech. Further, censorship as a civil right has become more important both domestically and internationally than free speech. See the blog entry below on this trend at http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/09/is-censorship-civil-right.html.
It may be very well time for the constitution to catch up to the reality of the laws and judicial opinions by which we really live and end the intellectual hypocrisy perpetuated by the Supreme Court and NPN, among others. But, having little patience for intellectual hypocrisy, I am back to blogging for better or worse.
I did continue to submit comments at the NPN website from time to time, and noticed the continuation of a disturbing tendency on the part of NPN. Because NPN “moderates” submissions, the submissions typically do not appear, if at all, until long after the NPN blog entry has been featured and replaced by new material, and then only if NPN has developed a rebuttal response. So, as a practical matter few, if any, of the public will notice the submitted comments once they are posted by NPN, and only then when NPN has the last word.
The most recent example of this is when in a submission I asked NPN why they were demanding Andrew Schefflo to disclose if he had any ties to Cap Video, which was posted with their contention in response that Andrew never explained why his thinking on the issue switched. I then submitted an explanation that Andrew had in fact explained his shift in thinking when he first spoke up at a City Council meeting, and noted that I posted his comments incorporating his explanation at this blogsite not long after Andrew made them before the City Council. See http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/10/is-children-or-fear-driving-city.html.
Instead of forthwith posting this submission, which cleared up the matter and demonstrated how little attention NPN really pays to opposing points of view, NPN in the meantime instead chose to post at least three rather lengthy features to their website burying the matter of their misadventure, rather than fess up. Even more remarkable is that the last of these three posts by NPN is all about the importance of trust and transparency between bloggers and their audience!
Its is sad to see NPN first sink to the level of implicitly alleging that Andrew was connected to Cap Video without mentioning any justification for casting him in such a light, and then to bury their error with moralistic and ethical rhetoric.
There’s been nothing pornographic about the comments I have submitted; they are all within the realm of political discourse one would assume NPN believes is worthy of respect, not censorship. Nonetheless, NPN appears to be more concerned with spewing forth whatever material they can find which solely supports their viewpoints. After all, in public debate quantity of speech often trumps quality of speech. No wonder one of NPN most common arguments is that the quantity of speech they can find which supports their viewpoints, rather than the quality of such speech, far exceeds the quantity of speech in support of contrary viewpoints. But this "common sense" which they trumpet is hardly in depth and critical analysis. If “common sense” were to rule the day, the world would still be flat, and women and children - who NPN claims to be so concerned about -- would still be the chattels of men.
Its time for NPN to be honest with us -- as well as themselves, if necessary -- and fess up to the truth: they do not believe the right to free speech should be a constitutional right justifying a broad and special scope of protection, and they would have us repeal the first amendment. While this point of view may be verboten in America, internationally it would not be so controversial. Many a democracy, such as the United Kigndom, thrive without a constitutional right to free speech. Further, censorship as a civil right has become more important both domestically and internationally than free speech. See the blog entry below on this trend at http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/09/is-censorship-civil-right.html.
It may be very well time for the constitution to catch up to the reality of the laws and judicial opinions by which we really live and end the intellectual hypocrisy perpetuated by the Supreme Court and NPN, among others. But, having little patience for intellectual hypocrisy, I am back to blogging for better or worse.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Danger, Pictures! Cap Video Writes to City Council
Editor’s note: I learned that Cap Video wrote the City Council and the Mayor yesterday about its plans for its store in Northampton, and its willingness to discuss matters with the City. So, I asked Cap Video to send me a copy and the below is what I received, including pictures of the interiers and exteriors of a store. In a follow up email to me Cap Video indicated that it would be willing to upscale even further its exteriors and interiors to be more tasteful and conservative in presentation than in the store appearing in the pictures.
Dear Mayor Higgins and City Council Members:
I am writing on behalf of CAPITAL VIDEO CORPORATION to clear up any misconceptions regarding its proposed business in your community.
Capital Video operates over 40 'AMAZING' stores featuring the concept of “Excite Your Life”. The stores are oriented more as a ‘sensuality’ style business, with a focus on couples and women in the adult market. The company operates a few high visibility stores, including units on Rte 9 in Northboro, MA; on Rte 1 in Peabody, MA; and a store off of Rte 95 in Providence, RI. These stores are designed in a ‘mainstream’ manner, much like one would see in a Victoria Secret in a mall, with pleasant colors, music, carpeting. The stores carry a wide variety of adult novelty items, along with lingerie, gag gifts like one finds at Spencer Gifts, greeting cards, lotions, games, along with sexually and sensually oriented movies and magazines. Amazing even sells higher priced original erotic and sensual art and memorabilia. Attached hereto are pictures of actual operating Amazing stores.
Capital intends on opening an 'upscale' store in Northampton, and would be very receptive to discussions with the community on the look, feel and the approach that the store presents to the community. Unfortunately, a campaign has been waged against our business by individuals that have maligned the reputation of Capital Video. Contrary to published reports, Capital enjoys an excellent relationship with its host communities, and has not encountered any of the problems or detrimental effects that have been put forth. Our employees and the stores they operate are responsible members of their communities. A recent article in the Stonington Times in North Stonington, CT highlighted our store and its employees, exemplifying that they have been accepted with open arms by the community. There is absolutely no truth that our business increases crime, or detracts from the neighborhood in which we operate.
The ability for Capital Video to work with the community has been short circuited by the presentation of certain ordinances that have not allowed for any discussion about Capital’s specific plans, except for the short presentations given during the open council session. The company is not blind to the fact that sexuality and sensuality are touchy subjects, and it has an obligation to present itself in a mature and non-offensive manner. Capital’s intention is to drive more pedestrian traffic to the proposed location on King Street, and to create an environment that would enhance the development of other businesses in the area. We would be hopeful to be having a dialogue with the community to work on a plan that will improve the area, and provide a comfortable environment to all.
Northampton does not need the ordinances that have been proposed regarding adult businesses. The assumption that the proposed plans of Capital will be detrimental to the community are totally misplaced. Creating laws that are focused on stopping one business almost always creates reprecussions to many other businesses. Why create a law that is just not needed?
Capital Video encourages the Council to consider all the facts before it makes a rash decision, and hopes that the community will maintain its present laws that provide a culture that is sensitive to the needs of all members of the community.
Thank you.
Lesley S. Rich, Esq., CPA General Counsel
Capital Video Corporation
1060 Park Avenue Cranston, RI 02910
Dear Mayor Higgins and City Council Members:
I am writing on behalf of CAPITAL VIDEO CORPORATION to clear up any misconceptions regarding its proposed business in your community.
Capital Video operates over 40 'AMAZING' stores featuring the concept of “Excite Your Life”. The stores are oriented more as a ‘sensuality’ style business, with a focus on couples and women in the adult market. The company operates a few high visibility stores, including units on Rte 9 in Northboro, MA; on Rte 1 in Peabody, MA; and a store off of Rte 95 in Providence, RI. These stores are designed in a ‘mainstream’ manner, much like one would see in a Victoria Secret in a mall, with pleasant colors, music, carpeting. The stores carry a wide variety of adult novelty items, along with lingerie, gag gifts like one finds at Spencer Gifts, greeting cards, lotions, games, along with sexually and sensually oriented movies and magazines. Amazing even sells higher priced original erotic and sensual art and memorabilia. Attached hereto are pictures of actual operating Amazing stores.
Capital intends on opening an 'upscale' store in Northampton, and would be very receptive to discussions with the community on the look, feel and the approach that the store presents to the community. Unfortunately, a campaign has been waged against our business by individuals that have maligned the reputation of Capital Video. Contrary to published reports, Capital enjoys an excellent relationship with its host communities, and has not encountered any of the problems or detrimental effects that have been put forth. Our employees and the stores they operate are responsible members of their communities. A recent article in the Stonington Times in North Stonington, CT highlighted our store and its employees, exemplifying that they have been accepted with open arms by the community. There is absolutely no truth that our business increases crime, or detracts from the neighborhood in which we operate.
The ability for Capital Video to work with the community has been short circuited by the presentation of certain ordinances that have not allowed for any discussion about Capital’s specific plans, except for the short presentations given during the open council session. The company is not blind to the fact that sexuality and sensuality are touchy subjects, and it has an obligation to present itself in a mature and non-offensive manner. Capital’s intention is to drive more pedestrian traffic to the proposed location on King Street, and to create an environment that would enhance the development of other businesses in the area. We would be hopeful to be having a dialogue with the community to work on a plan that will improve the area, and provide a comfortable environment to all.
Northampton does not need the ordinances that have been proposed regarding adult businesses. The assumption that the proposed plans of Capital will be detrimental to the community are totally misplaced. Creating laws that are focused on stopping one business almost always creates reprecussions to many other businesses. Why create a law that is just not needed?
Capital Video encourages the Council to consider all the facts before it makes a rash decision, and hopes that the community will maintain its present laws that provide a culture that is sensitive to the needs of all members of the community.
Thank you.
Lesley S. Rich, Esq., CPA General Counsel
Capital Video Corporation
1060 Park Avenue Cranston, RI 02910
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Neighborhood Planning Aikido
Editors note: Ueshiba declared, "To control aggression without inflicting injury is the Art of Peace." Aikido is the marital art where one meets aggression with an effective but merciful response, and a means of finding harmony in conflict. In the following I justify why, as a practical matter, the City should try aikido in this instance where our rights of free speech and expression are at stake rather using crude zoning laws.
Dear Readers (and Critics):
I have thought a lot about the local planning control and economic development concerns many people have had with respect to adult establishments. I think the City should take a case by case approach, rather than acting upon the presumption that all adult establishments over 1,000 square feet are bad. After all, if public presumption were to rule the day, the world would still be flat.
The 135 King Street area is not exactly an upscale or residential strip, littered with empty lots, auto, hardware, muffler, fast food, etc. shops as it is. But for those of us who would like to see it improved upon, such as myself, many of us seem to believe a Cap Video store would be step in the wrong direction. I think it depends upon what Cap Video would actually do there.
Most of us assume adult establishments will be seedy, shoddy, etc. places, if not downright threatening. But this is not always the case. As you drive or walk by many of them you probably do not even notice the more upscale or quainter adult establishments which do not fit into your preconceptions. Adult establishments can be non-threatening and inoffensive on the outside and tasteful (no pun intended) and fun on the inside; some prefer to call these adult establishments “spas,” “clubs” or “sensuality shops,” for example.
As I understand it, the City’s long term plans for that section of King Street are for it to become more residential orientated and pedestrian, like the core of downtown is. I dare say a full sized sensuality shop at 135 King Street may advance the City’s hope and dreams for that section of King Street more than hurt them. It will draw many more pedestrian travelers and drive-by shoppers from downtown to stop and shop in that area than there are now. And with that pedestrian and other traffic will come the trendier retail establishments and other development that better fits into the City’s vision for that section of King Street.
As the United States 11th Circuit Court of Appeals remarked in a recent case, Peek-A-Boo Lounge v. Manatee County: “The evidence in the record relating to conditions in Fulton County shows unequivocally that property values in neighborhoods adjoining the Clubs have increased during the time the Clubs have been in existence, and that surrounding buildings show no signs of blight, or lack of physical maintenance.”
While I still am upset that Mr. G has not come to town and stood up to face the fire of public opinion, like many of us have, I shared our local planning control and economic development concerns with the attorney for Cap Video. I received the following from the General Counsel of Cap Video:
Dear Peter:
We sincerely appreciate your efforts, and your presentation of the issues. As Capital Video has developed stores, it has definitely been moving in the direction of a "Sensuality Shop". We have a few of these currently, including on Rte 9 in Northboro, MA; on Rte 1 in Peabody, MA; and a store off of Rte 95 in Providence, RI. These stores are presented in a much more mainstream manner, much like one would see in a Victoria Secret in a mall, with pleasant colors, music, carpeting. These stores carry a wide variety of adult novelty items, along with lingerie, gag gifts like one finds at Spencer Gifts, greeting cards, lotions, games, along with the so-called "porn". We even sell higher priced original erotic and sensual art and memorabilia in some stores.
We most certainly intend on opening an 'upscale' store in Northhampton, and would be very receptive to discussions with the community on the look, feel and the approach that the store presents to the community.
Unfortunately we have been short circuited in the process by the presentation of the ordinances that do not allow for any discussion.
Your efforts to establish a dialogue with the council and mayor are appreciated. I am available at most any time to sit and discuss different approaches to the issues, and to design a store that would not be offensive to the neighborhood and the community.
Please contact me at any time to discuss this further.
Lesley S. Rich, Esq., CPA
General Counsel
Metcap Management, LLC
1060 Park Avenue
Cranston, RI 02910
In light of this offer by Mr. Rich, for the City Council to take action here likely to result in needless litigation in this instance is just plain political convenience or grandstanding rather than responsible public service.
I think its time, even for the City Council Members who would ban adult materials entirely if they could, to put on hold their plans to pass the proposed adult entertainment zoning until the City and Cap Video have tried to work out a plan which will advance their respective interests and goals for 135 King Street and the surrounding area.
Yours/AC
Dear Readers (and Critics):
I have thought a lot about the local planning control and economic development concerns many people have had with respect to adult establishments. I think the City should take a case by case approach, rather than acting upon the presumption that all adult establishments over 1,000 square feet are bad. After all, if public presumption were to rule the day, the world would still be flat.
The 135 King Street area is not exactly an upscale or residential strip, littered with empty lots, auto, hardware, muffler, fast food, etc. shops as it is. But for those of us who would like to see it improved upon, such as myself, many of us seem to believe a Cap Video store would be step in the wrong direction. I think it depends upon what Cap Video would actually do there.
Most of us assume adult establishments will be seedy, shoddy, etc. places, if not downright threatening. But this is not always the case. As you drive or walk by many of them you probably do not even notice the more upscale or quainter adult establishments which do not fit into your preconceptions. Adult establishments can be non-threatening and inoffensive on the outside and tasteful (no pun intended) and fun on the inside; some prefer to call these adult establishments “spas,” “clubs” or “sensuality shops,” for example.
As I understand it, the City’s long term plans for that section of King Street are for it to become more residential orientated and pedestrian, like the core of downtown is. I dare say a full sized sensuality shop at 135 King Street may advance the City’s hope and dreams for that section of King Street more than hurt them. It will draw many more pedestrian travelers and drive-by shoppers from downtown to stop and shop in that area than there are now. And with that pedestrian and other traffic will come the trendier retail establishments and other development that better fits into the City’s vision for that section of King Street.
As the United States 11th Circuit Court of Appeals remarked in a recent case, Peek-A-Boo Lounge v. Manatee County: “The evidence in the record relating to conditions in Fulton County shows unequivocally that property values in neighborhoods adjoining the Clubs have increased during the time the Clubs have been in existence, and that surrounding buildings show no signs of blight, or lack of physical maintenance.”
While I still am upset that Mr. G has not come to town and stood up to face the fire of public opinion, like many of us have, I shared our local planning control and economic development concerns with the attorney for Cap Video. I received the following from the General Counsel of Cap Video:
Dear Peter:
We sincerely appreciate your efforts, and your presentation of the issues. As Capital Video has developed stores, it has definitely been moving in the direction of a "Sensuality Shop". We have a few of these currently, including on Rte 9 in Northboro, MA; on Rte 1 in Peabody, MA; and a store off of Rte 95 in Providence, RI. These stores are presented in a much more mainstream manner, much like one would see in a Victoria Secret in a mall, with pleasant colors, music, carpeting. These stores carry a wide variety of adult novelty items, along with lingerie, gag gifts like one finds at Spencer Gifts, greeting cards, lotions, games, along with the so-called "porn". We even sell higher priced original erotic and sensual art and memorabilia in some stores.
We most certainly intend on opening an 'upscale' store in Northhampton, and would be very receptive to discussions with the community on the look, feel and the approach that the store presents to the community.
Unfortunately we have been short circuited in the process by the presentation of the ordinances that do not allow for any discussion.
Your efforts to establish a dialogue with the council and mayor are appreciated. I am available at most any time to sit and discuss different approaches to the issues, and to design a store that would not be offensive to the neighborhood and the community.
Please contact me at any time to discuss this further.
Lesley S. Rich, Esq., CPA
General Counsel
Metcap Management, LLC
1060 Park Avenue
Cranston, RI 02910
In light of this offer by Mr. Rich, for the City Council to take action here likely to result in needless litigation in this instance is just plain political convenience or grandstanding rather than responsible public service.
I think its time, even for the City Council Members who would ban adult materials entirely if they could, to put on hold their plans to pass the proposed adult entertainment zoning until the City and Cap Video have tried to work out a plan which will advance their respective interests and goals for 135 King Street and the surrounding area.
Yours/AC
Adult Businesses and Crime
Editors note: Here's something that Andrew Shelffo posted at MassLive today.
There's been a lot of discussion about the so-called "secondary effects" of adult businesses in Northampton. The argument goes like this: if the City Council doesn't pass the zoning ordinances before it on Thursday and Capital Video opens on King St., then Northampton will be subjected to an increase in crime. It's worth noting, however, that Northampton already has adult businesses operating in town and has not seen evidence of secondary effects.
The NoPorn people will tell you, however, that's because the adult businesses in town are not run by Capital Video. I am not defending Capital Video and its business practices, but I did notice this week that Warwick, Rhode Island, which has a Capital Video store, was just ranked at the 42nd safest city in the country. In addition, Springfield announced last week that crime has been down this year. Yes, there is a Capital Video store in Springfield.
Today's Republican reports that Springfield's Police Chief is upset with Springfield's place on the safest cities' list. He does not, however, blame adult businesses for the city's low rankings. "We've got the same hot spots that everybody's got," Chief Flynn says.
It's quite possible that for all of the "evidence" NoPorn has presented about secondary effects, that it's far from a foregone conclusion that the sky will indeed fall if an adult business opens on King St.
There's been a lot of discussion about the so-called "secondary effects" of adult businesses in Northampton. The argument goes like this: if the City Council doesn't pass the zoning ordinances before it on Thursday and Capital Video opens on King St., then Northampton will be subjected to an increase in crime. It's worth noting, however, that Northampton already has adult businesses operating in town and has not seen evidence of secondary effects.
The NoPorn people will tell you, however, that's because the adult businesses in town are not run by Capital Video. I am not defending Capital Video and its business practices, but I did notice this week that Warwick, Rhode Island, which has a Capital Video store, was just ranked at the 42nd safest city in the country. In addition, Springfield announced last week that crime has been down this year. Yes, there is a Capital Video store in Springfield.
Today's Republican reports that Springfield's Police Chief is upset with Springfield's place on the safest cities' list. He does not, however, blame adult businesses for the city's low rankings. "We've got the same hot spots that everybody's got," Chief Flynn says.
It's quite possible that for all of the "evidence" NoPorn has presented about secondary effects, that it's far from a foregone conclusion that the sky will indeed fall if an adult business opens on King St.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Final Vote on Moslem Zoning Thursday!
Editors note: The Adventures of the partners, Adam Cohen and Peter Brooks, continue. If you are not familiar with this saga, read the posting titled “Erotica Specialty Store Raided; former Mayor Higgins Mystified” at http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/09/erotic-specialty-store-raided-former.html
From the Mrs. Potterville Gazette, October 30, 2011, by A.C.
The City Council will take a second vote this coming Thursday on the proposal to zone Islamic establishments 500 feet from any non-Islamic church/house of worship, day care center, park, playground, school, residence, or other Islamic establishment. Islamic establishments with display and Islamic activity areas under 1,000 square feet would be exempt from the proposal. The first vote was 6 to 3 in favor of the proposal.
The proposal followed swiftly upon the heels of the announcement by Adam “Allah” Cohen and Peter “The Prophet” Brooks to open an Islamic mosque and book, video and novelty store at 135 King Street, the A & P Islamic Prayer & Poetry Center. Adam “Allah” Cohen is the former partner of Jendi Reiter, who mobilized the neighborhood against the plans for the Center with her website, NoMoslemNorthampton.org.
Readers may recall that before becoming Allah and The Prophet, Adam and Peter formerly operated a small porn and poetry shop at the same location and sublet the balance of the premises to a drug store, Dolly’s, but nonetheless ran afoul of Mrs. Potterville’s adult establishment zoning regulations.
Upon their arrest, Adam and Peter voluntarily undertook the Treatment. The Treatment is the reeducation camp program where, we previously reported, former Council Member Bardsley inadvertently found himself after being mistakenly caught in one of Mrs. Pottersville’s Vice Squad sting operations.
Impressed with their progress, neighborhood judge Marianne “The Merciful" Richards let Adam and Peter keep the 135 King Street property and their homes, but she could not ignore her constituents’ demands that they be punished and sentenced them to no less than 2 years.
According to Adam and Peter, while serving their time and obsessed with thoughts about how to protect women and children from pornography, they talked with the Islamic members of their new community. They were very moved by Islam’s concern for protecting women from men’s prurient interests by requiring women to wear the burka and the hijab, and be veiled, among other things. So, they converted.
Now they are determined to make 135 King Street an Islamic center for prayer, sermons, books, videos, and novelties, like knifes, swords and whips used for meting out justice in accordance with Islamic law and custom. They purchased the Northampton franchise rights from an Islamic center franchisor, Fatwa Video.
Many believe the head of Fatwa Video, Mr. “Big Bucks” Ghaalib, is associated with al-Qaeda because he formerly had business relations with the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is known that he even dined with Osama bin Laden. They are positive that the Fatwa Video store will be just a money laundering operation or large billboard for the website on a heavily traveled artery of the City. As Mr. Bill said, “why would they want to establish a large scale Islamic center here?”
The original plans for the Center included a social lounge exclusively for men of all faiths to visit. For free they could chat as they shared a cup of coffee and smoked from the hooka, or “relax as the belly dancers entertained them when nothing important is on the television, like a Patriots or Red Sox game.” Peter continued, “We do have our neighborhood entertainment priorities straight!”
But, community outrage against the social lounge for a number of reasons prompted the pair to delete the social lounge from the plans. Nonetheelss, said one employee of the nearby body shop, “We’re really bummed about that ...” Fatwa Video’s representative protested, “The men no touch the dancers. If they do, we cut off their fingers!”
The neighbors became alarmed when they visited the Fatwa Video website and saw that its stock included magazines and videos that graphically depicted and celebrated female circumcision and the defacement -- even the tortured murder -- of errant women, and other corporal measures, such as the beheadings of infidel Christians and Jews found in Islamic lands.
But most of all, they objected to the dark robed men armed with knives “already streaming” into the neighborhood, visions of pro-jihad murals and graffiti splashed across the storefront and to “those damn shrieking” calls to prayer. Adam protested, “Neither murals nor loudspeakers are included in the plan, and no one complains about the clanging of those ‘damn’ infidel church bells! So, …”
Many citizens, particularly if accompanied by children, say they will avoid walking or even driving past the Center. The City’s Memorandum justifying the proposed zoning by its Planning Director states in pertinent part:
“Because the large scale Islamic Establishments greater than 1,000 square feet have the tendency to create blank, inactive voids in the street fabric due to their size and façade treatments it is important to ensure that such establishments are not located within 500 feet of such walkable neighborhoods that include churches, residences or schools. These voids discourage walking or decrease the number of trips that are done without a car or are done by younger children on their own, …”
“Additionally, the secondary effects of larger scale Islamic establishments with Islamic material often include impacts to adjoining businesses that may result in economic decline and declining property values which further spread the inactive void along the street façade. This economic decline may be less serious in areas where everyone drives and is cloistered from the effects of nearby business, but in Mrs. Pottersville where many people walk, and we are investing large sums to increase the number of trips done on foot (and by bicycle) the impacts would be devastating. …”
In an earlier radio debate Jendi Reiter claimed that Adam and Peter have “no right to subject her neighborhood to excessive physical risks, risks documented at NoMoslemNorthampton.org.” and that “the relocation of the Fatwa Video store to the outskirts of town will be but a slight inconvenience.”
Adam retorted, “You act like you own the neighborhood. Jendi, you don’t.” Peter and Adam also live near 135 King Street. In fact, closer than 134 North Street where Jendi and Adam lived together.
Peter protested that the public which they wish to reach are the pedestrians and bicyclers who roam the downtown area, as well as drive-by shoppers who may pass the Center as they come and go from the downtown area. “After all,” said Peter, “if you are not already a follower of Muhammad the Prophet, would you make a special trip to an Islamic Center somewhere behind the Wal-Mart?”
Adam further claimed that “the Center should draw many more pedestrian travelers, albeit many at first who are Islamic, out further down King Street from the downtown area in accordance with the City’s goals for the City.”
In public hearings on the matter, the City’s Planning Director has identified, albeit vaguely, two places where he believes the Center could be located under the proposed zoning ordinance, but has not released any definitive study about either the presumed secondary effects or the availability of places where the Center could be located. Indeed, as Peter pointed out in the radio debate, “who knows even if the owners of those alternative locations would sell or lease to us? If not, what then? What purpose does the First Amendment serve if a City can, as a practical matter, zone you out of town?”
In the radio debate, Adam, tried to finish it off with a philosophical flourish, “If a tree falls in the forest, it doesn’t make a sound if there is no one there to hear it!”
“Adam,” Peter said, “I think its ‘If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?'”
“But, Peter ….”
“Whatever!”
In other news, President Cheney invited Mayor Mrs. Potter, one of the leading socially conservative “red” democrats, to visit the White House and boost her campaign for Governor …
From the Mrs. Potterville Gazette, October 30, 2011, by A.C.
The City Council will take a second vote this coming Thursday on the proposal to zone Islamic establishments 500 feet from any non-Islamic church/house of worship, day care center, park, playground, school, residence, or other Islamic establishment. Islamic establishments with display and Islamic activity areas under 1,000 square feet would be exempt from the proposal. The first vote was 6 to 3 in favor of the proposal.
The proposal followed swiftly upon the heels of the announcement by Adam “Allah” Cohen and Peter “The Prophet” Brooks to open an Islamic mosque and book, video and novelty store at 135 King Street, the A & P Islamic Prayer & Poetry Center. Adam “Allah” Cohen is the former partner of Jendi Reiter, who mobilized the neighborhood against the plans for the Center with her website, NoMoslemNorthampton.org.
Readers may recall that before becoming Allah and The Prophet, Adam and Peter formerly operated a small porn and poetry shop at the same location and sublet the balance of the premises to a drug store, Dolly’s, but nonetheless ran afoul of Mrs. Potterville’s adult establishment zoning regulations.
Upon their arrest, Adam and Peter voluntarily undertook the Treatment. The Treatment is the reeducation camp program where, we previously reported, former Council Member Bardsley inadvertently found himself after being mistakenly caught in one of Mrs. Pottersville’s Vice Squad sting operations.
Impressed with their progress, neighborhood judge Marianne “The Merciful" Richards let Adam and Peter keep the 135 King Street property and their homes, but she could not ignore her constituents’ demands that they be punished and sentenced them to no less than 2 years.
According to Adam and Peter, while serving their time and obsessed with thoughts about how to protect women and children from pornography, they talked with the Islamic members of their new community. They were very moved by Islam’s concern for protecting women from men’s prurient interests by requiring women to wear the burka and the hijab, and be veiled, among other things. So, they converted.
Now they are determined to make 135 King Street an Islamic center for prayer, sermons, books, videos, and novelties, like knifes, swords and whips used for meting out justice in accordance with Islamic law and custom. They purchased the Northampton franchise rights from an Islamic center franchisor, Fatwa Video.
Many believe the head of Fatwa Video, Mr. “Big Bucks” Ghaalib, is associated with al-Qaeda because he formerly had business relations with the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is known that he even dined with Osama bin Laden. They are positive that the Fatwa Video store will be just a money laundering operation or large billboard for the website on a heavily traveled artery of the City. As Mr. Bill said, “why would they want to establish a large scale Islamic center here?”
The original plans for the Center included a social lounge exclusively for men of all faiths to visit. For free they could chat as they shared a cup of coffee and smoked from the hooka, or “relax as the belly dancers entertained them when nothing important is on the television, like a Patriots or Red Sox game.” Peter continued, “We do have our neighborhood entertainment priorities straight!”
But, community outrage against the social lounge for a number of reasons prompted the pair to delete the social lounge from the plans. Nonetheelss, said one employee of the nearby body shop, “We’re really bummed about that ...” Fatwa Video’s representative protested, “The men no touch the dancers. If they do, we cut off their fingers!”
The neighbors became alarmed when they visited the Fatwa Video website and saw that its stock included magazines and videos that graphically depicted and celebrated female circumcision and the defacement -- even the tortured murder -- of errant women, and other corporal measures, such as the beheadings of infidel Christians and Jews found in Islamic lands.
But most of all, they objected to the dark robed men armed with knives “already streaming” into the neighborhood, visions of pro-jihad murals and graffiti splashed across the storefront and to “those damn shrieking” calls to prayer. Adam protested, “Neither murals nor loudspeakers are included in the plan, and no one complains about the clanging of those ‘damn’ infidel church bells! So, …”
Many citizens, particularly if accompanied by children, say they will avoid walking or even driving past the Center. The City’s Memorandum justifying the proposed zoning by its Planning Director states in pertinent part:
“Because the large scale Islamic Establishments greater than 1,000 square feet have the tendency to create blank, inactive voids in the street fabric due to their size and façade treatments it is important to ensure that such establishments are not located within 500 feet of such walkable neighborhoods that include churches, residences or schools. These voids discourage walking or decrease the number of trips that are done without a car or are done by younger children on their own, …”
“Additionally, the secondary effects of larger scale Islamic establishments with Islamic material often include impacts to adjoining businesses that may result in economic decline and declining property values which further spread the inactive void along the street façade. This economic decline may be less serious in areas where everyone drives and is cloistered from the effects of nearby business, but in Mrs. Pottersville where many people walk, and we are investing large sums to increase the number of trips done on foot (and by bicycle) the impacts would be devastating. …”
In an earlier radio debate Jendi Reiter claimed that Adam and Peter have “no right to subject her neighborhood to excessive physical risks, risks documented at NoMoslemNorthampton.org.” and that “the relocation of the Fatwa Video store to the outskirts of town will be but a slight inconvenience.”
Adam retorted, “You act like you own the neighborhood. Jendi, you don’t.” Peter and Adam also live near 135 King Street. In fact, closer than 134 North Street where Jendi and Adam lived together.
Peter protested that the public which they wish to reach are the pedestrians and bicyclers who roam the downtown area, as well as drive-by shoppers who may pass the Center as they come and go from the downtown area. “After all,” said Peter, “if you are not already a follower of Muhammad the Prophet, would you make a special trip to an Islamic Center somewhere behind the Wal-Mart?”
Adam further claimed that “the Center should draw many more pedestrian travelers, albeit many at first who are Islamic, out further down King Street from the downtown area in accordance with the City’s goals for the City.”
In public hearings on the matter, the City’s Planning Director has identified, albeit vaguely, two places where he believes the Center could be located under the proposed zoning ordinance, but has not released any definitive study about either the presumed secondary effects or the availability of places where the Center could be located. Indeed, as Peter pointed out in the radio debate, “who knows even if the owners of those alternative locations would sell or lease to us? If not, what then? What purpose does the First Amendment serve if a City can, as a practical matter, zone you out of town?”
In the radio debate, Adam, tried to finish it off with a philosophical flourish, “If a tree falls in the forest, it doesn’t make a sound if there is no one there to hear it!”
“Adam,” Peter said, “I think its ‘If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?'”
“But, Peter ….”
“Whatever!”
In other news, President Cheney invited Mayor Mrs. Potter, one of the leading socially conservative “red” democrats, to visit the White House and boost her campaign for Governor …
My Experience With Breast Cancer
The Gazette today published a letter to the editor by Tarn Martin, who wrote, "I understand that people are having a difficult time with the idea of a porn shop moving into town but, honestly, shouldn't we be putting our efforts toward something that is truly work fighting for, such as breast cancer." Four years ago in October of 2002 my beloved, Siyeta, passed away from breast cancer after a seven year battle. I think in the end she was just tired of it all, the kemo, the red tape, the etc. She just wanted to live a normal life again which she did for a number of months before the lack of regular kemo treatments ... I'd just like to share with you all a couple of special things that I learned from the experience that may help.
First, in 2000 when Siyeta was thin and frail and falling out of bed and could not get out of the tub on her own and the doctors had exhausted all the kemo options ... she learned of a dietary supplement called MGN-3 that had helped a friend of a friend ... She began to take significant quantities of it daily and over the next few months, in combination with the kemo treatments, she remarkably recovered. It helped boost her immune system. MGN-3 is no longer on the market, the distributor having run afoul of the FDA, but I believe with a little research you can find virtually the same supplement under a different name from a different distributor.
Second, I discovered a wonderful support organization called CancerCare. CancerCare is a national nonprofit organization that provides free, professional support services for anyone affected by cancer. Although I learned of it too late to save Siyeta, in her case at least it enabled us to cut through the red tape of social services in her final weeks so she could rest comfortably in the care of the hospital and doctors she preferred. I just can't express how great my appreciation for them is .... Here's their contact info: Call 1-800-813-HOPE or email info@cancercare.org.
Yours/AC
First, in 2000 when Siyeta was thin and frail and falling out of bed and could not get out of the tub on her own and the doctors had exhausted all the kemo options ... she learned of a dietary supplement called MGN-3 that had helped a friend of a friend ... She began to take significant quantities of it daily and over the next few months, in combination with the kemo treatments, she remarkably recovered. It helped boost her immune system. MGN-3 is no longer on the market, the distributor having run afoul of the FDA, but I believe with a little research you can find virtually the same supplement under a different name from a different distributor.
Second, I discovered a wonderful support organization called CancerCare. CancerCare is a national nonprofit organization that provides free, professional support services for anyone affected by cancer. Although I learned of it too late to save Siyeta, in her case at least it enabled us to cut through the red tape of social services in her final weeks so she could rest comfortably in the care of the hospital and doctors she preferred. I just can't express how great my appreciation for them is .... Here's their contact info: Call 1-800-813-HOPE or email info@cancercare.org.
Yours/AC
Saturday, October 28, 2006
A Parent's Concern That Fear Is Driving The City Council
Editors note: Here are the comments that Andrew Shelffo made before the City Council at its last meeting before it voted 6 to 3 for the proposed zoning concering adult book and video stores, etc. Andrew lives not far from me and 135 King Street in Northampton with his wife and two children. He is also the author of The Prospect Perspective Blog on Masslive.com.
The link to his blog is: http://www.masslive.com/northampton/prospect/weblog/
I come here tonight to speak about the proposed zoning ordinance regarding the size and location of adult businesses. I come here not as a pro-porn person or an anti-porn person, but as a husband and father who lives near the King St. location.
When I first heard about the store proposed for King Street, my immediate reaction was that I didn't want it to be there. I have two young children and I envisioned having to have uncomfortable conversations with them about what "that store" is all about. I didn't think that having the store there would be a good thing for parents who go by that location with their children; there are some things, after all, that parents should have the right to explain to their children on their own terms and not be forced by external circumstances.
However, as the debate has gone on and I've done some research on the subject and thought about the consequences involved in trying to regulate this material and the very real first amendment issues involved, I've found that my position has evolved. And as anyone who's a parent knows, that's a major part of parenting: the need to adjust your beliefs in the face of new challenges as you struggle to deal with the day-to-day stuff. In addition to that, thanks to the recent protests and the headlines in the newspapers, I've had initial conversations with my older son about what pornography is. And I've realized that having that conversation is important and represents an important opportunity for me to teach my children about some of the more uncomfortable things in the world.
The fact of the matter is that pornography of all stripes exists in our society and is readily available in Northampton. The proposed regulations will do nothing to change that. And the suggestion that the regulations will "protect" us and our children from pornography is fear-mongering at its worst. Pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry that has grown tremendously in recent years. If pornography is as harmful as some people would suggest, we would expect to see a resulting rise in sexual offenses and sexual deviance in people who've been exposed to pornography, but this has not happened. What has happened is that the media has become enamored of sensationalism and the most lurid and disgusting stories get the most attention. This, too, plays upon people's fears.
And that's what I see happening here. Fear has turned into panic and we're scrambling to try and come up with an ordinance that will protect us from something we don't need to be protected from. That, to me, is a bad way to make laws.
The link to his blog is: http://www.masslive.com/northampton/prospect/weblog/
I come here tonight to speak about the proposed zoning ordinance regarding the size and location of adult businesses. I come here not as a pro-porn person or an anti-porn person, but as a husband and father who lives near the King St. location.
When I first heard about the store proposed for King Street, my immediate reaction was that I didn't want it to be there. I have two young children and I envisioned having to have uncomfortable conversations with them about what "that store" is all about. I didn't think that having the store there would be a good thing for parents who go by that location with their children; there are some things, after all, that parents should have the right to explain to their children on their own terms and not be forced by external circumstances.
However, as the debate has gone on and I've done some research on the subject and thought about the consequences involved in trying to regulate this material and the very real first amendment issues involved, I've found that my position has evolved. And as anyone who's a parent knows, that's a major part of parenting: the need to adjust your beliefs in the face of new challenges as you struggle to deal with the day-to-day stuff. In addition to that, thanks to the recent protests and the headlines in the newspapers, I've had initial conversations with my older son about what pornography is. And I've realized that having that conversation is important and represents an important opportunity for me to teach my children about some of the more uncomfortable things in the world.
The fact of the matter is that pornography of all stripes exists in our society and is readily available in Northampton. The proposed regulations will do nothing to change that. And the suggestion that the regulations will "protect" us and our children from pornography is fear-mongering at its worst. Pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry that has grown tremendously in recent years. If pornography is as harmful as some people would suggest, we would expect to see a resulting rise in sexual offenses and sexual deviance in people who've been exposed to pornography, but this has not happened. What has happened is that the media has become enamored of sensationalism and the most lurid and disgusting stories get the most attention. This, too, plays upon people's fears.
And that's what I see happening here. Fear has turned into panic and we're scrambling to try and come up with an ordinance that will protect us from something we don't need to be protected from. That, to me, is a bad way to make laws.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Constitutional Zoning Law & Secondary Effects
Editor’s note: The below was primarily prepared by our remote research staff, who happen to be professional researchers. They require that their identities not be revealed for fear of losing their “day jobs.” The very fact that researchers, all of people, feel they may lose their jobs … I think speaks volumes as to what this debate is ultimately all about: the “politically correct” or "appropiate" suppression of unpopular, if not downright offensive, ideas and expression, and the coercive effect it has upon public discourse -- an element essential, I think, for the health, vigor and maintenance of a democratic society.
To combat the development of adult businesses, many cities have relied on the crude instrumentality of zoning laws to protect their communities from the adverse secondary effects of these businesses. Supported by the Supreme Court’s opinion in City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres past court decisions have often ruled in the favor of the cities. However, things have begun to change. In City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books the Supreme Court ruled that cities can “rely on evidence reasonably believed to be relevant to demonstrate a connection between adult businesses and adverse secondary effects.”[1] However, the Court also demanded more from the cities in terms of the evidence used to demonstrate this correlation between adult businesses and secondary effects. “Cities can no longer rely on the ‘reasonable belief’ argument when the affected businesses produce evidence casting doubt on the regulations’ effectiveness, underlying rationale, or tendency to reduce speech.”[2] In short, with respect to zoning measures which banish adult establishments from the proximity of most of their customers, as well as residences, churches, etc., cities only have the benefit of a “rebuttable presumption” that an adult establishment will cause adverse secondary effects to an unreasonable extent. Several recent court cases have highlighted the more restrictive criteria that cities must meet.
In the case of Daytona Grand v. City of Daytona Beach a United States District Court ruled in favor of a nude dancing club. In this case, the plaintiffs provided expert testimony (Drs. Linz and Fisher, whose background the court ruled established their expertise in secondary effects) that showed “the City’s pre-enactment evidence consists either of purely anecdotal evidence or opinions based on highly unreliable data. Most notably, the City’s evidence lacks data which would allow for a comparison of the rate of crime occurring in and around adult entertainment establishments with the rate of crime occurring in and around similarly situated establishments.”[3] The experts for the plaintiffs also conducted their own secondary effects studies of crime around adult cabarets in Daytona Beach, and they did not find an increase in crime linked to the cabarets. The court ruled, “In failing to renew support for a theory justifying its ordinances, the City leaves the Court with only one option: to declare Ordinances 81-334 and 02-496 unconstitutional and strike them accordingly.”[4]
Another recent case was R.V.S., L.L.C. v. City of Rockford (7th Circuit 2004). In this case, the city of Rockford, IL passed an ordinance forcing exotic dancing nightclubs to apply for a special permit and not operate within 1000 feet “‘of a church, school, residential district or another exotic dancing nightclub.’”[5] Again, the court ruled in the favor of the plaintiffs. The court’s decision was based on “Rockford does not identify any studies, judicial opinions, or experience-based testimony that it considered in adopting the Ordinance…. Most of the Rockford’s evidence, at least as presented to date, does not appear to be directly relevant to the type of entertainment that Rockford seeks to regulate…. Additionally, the Ordinance does not appear to be narrowly tailored to affect a category of business establishments shown to produce unwanted secondary effects—or even establishments that could conceivably produce them.”[6]
In addition, there is less and less evidence that adult business necessarily tend to cause adverse secondary effects. The United States 11th Circuit Court of Appeals remarked in a recent case, Peek-A-Boo Lounge v. Manatee County: “The evidence in the record relating to conditions in Fulton County shows unequivocally that property values in neighborhoods adjoining the Clubs have increased during the time the Clubs have been in existence, and that surrounding buildings show no signs of blight, or lack of physical maintenance. Moreover, the Fulton County police study found greater reported crime connected with establishments that served alcohol but did not feature adult entertainment. In other words, local studies commissioned both by the Clubs and the Board found no evidence of the secondary effects with which the Board was purportedly concerned. The question thus becomes, was it reasonable for Defendants to ignore relevant local studies and rely instead upon remote foreign studies in determining whether adverse secondary effects were attributable to the Fulton County Clubs?”[7]
The plaintiff, Peek-A-Boo Lounge, presented three studies that demonstrated that the Lounge did not cause adverse secondary effects. The studies were:
Dr. Terry A. Danner, Chair of the Department of Criminology at St. Leo University, conducted a study utilizing the County’s own crime statistics that examined the criminogenic effects of the Appellant’s specific businesses and found that Appellants businesses did not cause such effects. Dr. Randy D. Fisher, Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of the Survey Research Laboratory at the University of Central Florida, prepared a study titled “Evidence for the Adverse Secondary Effects of Adult Entertainment: The Manatee County Record,” which examined the record submitted by the County in support of Ordinance 99-18 and concluded that because “the only statistical data provided [in the record] showed lower rates of crime . . . [and] substantial increases in property values, both in the long run and in the shorter run, in the areas around the existing adult businesses,” the specific evidence relating to the Appellants’ businesses contradicted any suggestion that “the two existing adult businesses in Manatee County have ‘adverse secondary effects.” Finally, Mr. Richard Schauseil, a licensed Florida real estate agent, conducted an extensive “Market Study and Report” on the effects of Appellants’ businesses on neighboring properties which found that there were “absolutely no signs of any negative effects on adjoining property values or conditions” resulting from Appellants’ businesses.[8]
Once again, the city did not (or was unable) to provide any data that could contradict the adult business' findings, and the court again ruled in favor of the adult business.
Dr. Daniel Linz (University of California, Santa Barbara) and Dr. Bryant Paul (Indiana University) have published several papers on adult businesses and secondary effects. Their research has found that the methodology of many secondary effects studies is flawed;[9] that there was less crime around adult businesses in Charlotte, NC than control areas;[10] and there was not a crime problem at peep show establishments in San Diego.[11]
In a couple of federal circuits, the courts seem to follow the Alameda Books opinion in words more than spirit, particularly the 10th Federal Circuit, which includes states like Kansas. Was it Kansas where in the public schools they banned the teaching of evolution and required creation theory to be taught?
Nonetheless, the above court cases and studies highlight that most cities at least can no longer rely on past studies and their pre-existing impressions to find that all adult establishments, regardless of how sensitive to the community and responsibly operated they are, tend to cause adverse secondary effects to an unreasonable degree. Cities are being drawn into lengthy and expensive legal battles to fight a problem that, as these studies suggest, may not be any more problematic than bars and other entertainment establishments may be.
To combat the development of adult businesses, many cities have relied on the crude instrumentality of zoning laws to protect their communities from the adverse secondary effects of these businesses. Supported by the Supreme Court’s opinion in City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres past court decisions have often ruled in the favor of the cities. However, things have begun to change. In City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books the Supreme Court ruled that cities can “rely on evidence reasonably believed to be relevant to demonstrate a connection between adult businesses and adverse secondary effects.”[1] However, the Court also demanded more from the cities in terms of the evidence used to demonstrate this correlation between adult businesses and secondary effects. “Cities can no longer rely on the ‘reasonable belief’ argument when the affected businesses produce evidence casting doubt on the regulations’ effectiveness, underlying rationale, or tendency to reduce speech.”[2] In short, with respect to zoning measures which banish adult establishments from the proximity of most of their customers, as well as residences, churches, etc., cities only have the benefit of a “rebuttable presumption” that an adult establishment will cause adverse secondary effects to an unreasonable extent. Several recent court cases have highlighted the more restrictive criteria that cities must meet.
In the case of Daytona Grand v. City of Daytona Beach a United States District Court ruled in favor of a nude dancing club. In this case, the plaintiffs provided expert testimony (Drs. Linz and Fisher, whose background the court ruled established their expertise in secondary effects) that showed “the City’s pre-enactment evidence consists either of purely anecdotal evidence or opinions based on highly unreliable data. Most notably, the City’s evidence lacks data which would allow for a comparison of the rate of crime occurring in and around adult entertainment establishments with the rate of crime occurring in and around similarly situated establishments.”[3] The experts for the plaintiffs also conducted their own secondary effects studies of crime around adult cabarets in Daytona Beach, and they did not find an increase in crime linked to the cabarets. The court ruled, “In failing to renew support for a theory justifying its ordinances, the City leaves the Court with only one option: to declare Ordinances 81-334 and 02-496 unconstitutional and strike them accordingly.”[4]
Another recent case was R.V.S., L.L.C. v. City of Rockford (7th Circuit 2004). In this case, the city of Rockford, IL passed an ordinance forcing exotic dancing nightclubs to apply for a special permit and not operate within 1000 feet “‘of a church, school, residential district or another exotic dancing nightclub.’”[5] Again, the court ruled in the favor of the plaintiffs. The court’s decision was based on “Rockford does not identify any studies, judicial opinions, or experience-based testimony that it considered in adopting the Ordinance…. Most of the Rockford’s evidence, at least as presented to date, does not appear to be directly relevant to the type of entertainment that Rockford seeks to regulate…. Additionally, the Ordinance does not appear to be narrowly tailored to affect a category of business establishments shown to produce unwanted secondary effects—or even establishments that could conceivably produce them.”[6]
In addition, there is less and less evidence that adult business necessarily tend to cause adverse secondary effects. The United States 11th Circuit Court of Appeals remarked in a recent case, Peek-A-Boo Lounge v. Manatee County: “The evidence in the record relating to conditions in Fulton County shows unequivocally that property values in neighborhoods adjoining the Clubs have increased during the time the Clubs have been in existence, and that surrounding buildings show no signs of blight, or lack of physical maintenance. Moreover, the Fulton County police study found greater reported crime connected with establishments that served alcohol but did not feature adult entertainment. In other words, local studies commissioned both by the Clubs and the Board found no evidence of the secondary effects with which the Board was purportedly concerned. The question thus becomes, was it reasonable for Defendants to ignore relevant local studies and rely instead upon remote foreign studies in determining whether adverse secondary effects were attributable to the Fulton County Clubs?”[7]
The plaintiff, Peek-A-Boo Lounge, presented three studies that demonstrated that the Lounge did not cause adverse secondary effects. The studies were:
Dr. Terry A. Danner, Chair of the Department of Criminology at St. Leo University, conducted a study utilizing the County’s own crime statistics that examined the criminogenic effects of the Appellant’s specific businesses and found that Appellants businesses did not cause such effects. Dr. Randy D. Fisher, Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of the Survey Research Laboratory at the University of Central Florida, prepared a study titled “Evidence for the Adverse Secondary Effects of Adult Entertainment: The Manatee County Record,” which examined the record submitted by the County in support of Ordinance 99-18 and concluded that because “the only statistical data provided [in the record] showed lower rates of crime . . . [and] substantial increases in property values, both in the long run and in the shorter run, in the areas around the existing adult businesses,” the specific evidence relating to the Appellants’ businesses contradicted any suggestion that “the two existing adult businesses in Manatee County have ‘adverse secondary effects.” Finally, Mr. Richard Schauseil, a licensed Florida real estate agent, conducted an extensive “Market Study and Report” on the effects of Appellants’ businesses on neighboring properties which found that there were “absolutely no signs of any negative effects on adjoining property values or conditions” resulting from Appellants’ businesses.[8]
Once again, the city did not (or was unable) to provide any data that could contradict the adult business' findings, and the court again ruled in favor of the adult business.
Dr. Daniel Linz (University of California, Santa Barbara) and Dr. Bryant Paul (Indiana University) have published several papers on adult businesses and secondary effects. Their research has found that the methodology of many secondary effects studies is flawed;[9] that there was less crime around adult businesses in Charlotte, NC than control areas;[10] and there was not a crime problem at peep show establishments in San Diego.[11]
In a couple of federal circuits, the courts seem to follow the Alameda Books opinion in words more than spirit, particularly the 10th Federal Circuit, which includes states like Kansas. Was it Kansas where in the public schools they banned the teaching of evolution and required creation theory to be taught?
Nonetheless, the above court cases and studies highlight that most cities at least can no longer rely on past studies and their pre-existing impressions to find that all adult establishments, regardless of how sensitive to the community and responsibly operated they are, tend to cause adverse secondary effects to an unreasonable degree. Cities are being drawn into lengthy and expensive legal battles to fight a problem that, as these studies suggest, may not be any more problematic than bars and other entertainment establishments may be.
Footnotes:
[1] Lawlor, James. “Adult Business Rules Subject to Closer Scrutiny.” Planning 72.4 (April 2006): 49.
[2] Ibid. 49.
[3] Daytona Grand v. City of Daytona. 410 F.Supp.2d 1173. (M.D. Fla. 2006).
[4] Ibid.
[5] R.V.S., L.L.C. v. City of Rockford. 361 F.3d 402. (7th Cir. Ill. 2004).
[6] Ibid.
[7] Flanigan’s Enters., Inc. v. Fulton County, Ga. 242 F.3d 976, 986. (11th Cir. Fla. 2001).
[8] Peek-A-Boo Lounge v. Manatee County, Fl. 337 F.3d 1251. (11th Circ. Fla. 2003).
[9] Bryant Paul, Daniel Linz, and Bradley J. Shafer. “Government Regulation of "Adult" Businesses Through Zoning and Anti-Nudity Ordinances: Debunking the Legal Myth of Negative Secondary Effects.” Communication Law & Policy 6 (2001): 355.
[10] Linz, Daniel, et. al. “An Examination of the Assumption that Adult Businesses Are Associated with Crime in Surrounding Areas: A Secondary Effects Study in Charlotte, North Carolina.” Law and Society Review 38 (March 2004): 69.
[11] Linz, Daniel, Bryant Paul, and Mike Z. Yao. “Peep Show Establishments, Police Activity, Public Place, and Time: A Study of Secondary Effects in San Diego, California.” Journal of Sex Research 43.2 (May 2006): 182.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
The Real Evil ...
(abridged edition)
Is that devil loathsome fear.
In our horror at the prospect of a triple-X porn store in our midst, we fail to venture forth to even imagine better solutions for an increasingly common problem: how to protect the free flow of expression and ideas, on the one hand, and women and children and the integrity of neighborhoods, on the other hand. Didn’t one of the greatest leaders in our history once declare, “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself!”
A hip-hop club and bar could not be stopped from doing business at 135 King Street and utilizing the entire 6,000 square feet based upon the assumption that its content alone causes bad secondary effects, but many justifiably claim adult establishments can be.
This is so because the Supreme Court’s City of Renton opinion (written by the same justice that would uphold laws criminalizing homosexuality) says that bad secondary effects flow from the pornographic content of an adult establishment inevitably as light from the sun.
The truth is that the content of adult establishments do not cause secondary effects anymore than hip-hop music in clubs and bars. What really makes the difference is how adult establishments and hip-hop clubs and bars are managed and operated.
Nonetheless, many of us seem all too eager to zone adult establishments out of town based upon the content of the materials they sell, alone. Just because the Supreme Court states that a law is constitutional does not make it right. The Supreme Court upheld “separate but equal” laws for decades.
The City’s Memorandum to the City Council justifying the zoning proposal states that the issue here is size. But this is not a big box issue; Cap Video has no plans to expand the size of the existing structure, which really is no larger, and may be smaller, than many establishments nearby.
A far smaller triple-X porn store at 135 King Street, however, would still be allowed. So, what does the zoning law and other proposals accomplish? Not much really unless they become the first step of a progressively more repressive agenda. As one leading council member stated in the last city council meeting, “We should not stop now.”
If history is to be consulted as our guide, yes, no doubt, these measures will be the first step. The tyranny of the majority in a democracy never successfully starts out looking like what it is. It begins by preying upon the people’s most noble sentiments to protect what the public believes to be most vulnerable, be it women and children, public morality and decency, the integrity of neighborhoods, or our sacred “American way of life.”
The goal will become banishing a certain type of adult content entirely because implies that certain types of offensive and harmful sexual conduct should be tolerated, if not accepted and celebrated. But the second step shall be merely to put all of our pornography in places where pedestrian residents and customers of downtown Northampton are highly unlikely to travel, and thus be less likely to consider the merits of its “bad” message for themselves. Oh my …!
Dear City Citizens and Council Members please be free to counter with speech and ideas the speech and ideas that you find offensive and harmful, but by making it far less likely for pedestrians like me to incidentally consider certain ideas and expression, you now embark upon censorship of ideas and expression based upon what you alone deem to be without merit. No, I should have the right to judge for myself, thank you.
Moreover, as a practical matter, enactment of the pending zoning ordinances will no doubt sooner or later prompt litigation by Cap Video or another adult retail vendor intent upon expanding into our community. These measures in practice prove most successful with respect to spawning litigation that makes lawyers, like me, rich.
I say, let’s put off the proposed zoning ordinance until the parties have exhausted themselves on negotiations. After all, what’s the rush? Adult establishments are not grandfathered – protected from subsequent zoning by the City – under Massachusetts law.
With all of the diversity of opinion in America there are few things that we, the people, including pornographers, seem to agree upon, aside from opposing taxation without representation and making lawyers rich for no good purpose.
And there lies the common ground from which the City and Cap Video can begin to negotiate a solution that addresses their respective concerns and interests.
The City could begin, as I have suggested before in The Real Challenge, by asking Cap Video to comply with a licensing scheme similar in certain respects to the licensing scheme applied to bars. It could also ask if Cap Video would invest in that area of King Street in a manner that would advance the City’s hopes and dreams for that area.
If Cap Video had a vested interest in protecting, if not improving upon, the quality of life in the same neighborhood, it would be far less likely to tolerate a drop in the quality of life and the irresponsible management of its adult establishment located in the very same area. But, to my knowledge, the City leaders have not engaged Cap Video in a discussion of this nature.
John Lennon once wrote the song, “Imagine,” expressing for an entire generation our inner most desires. Yes, with all the intellect and creativity we have to draw upon, imagine the difference we can make here and now, just by refusing to repeat the same old litigious insanity … Yes, sweet Northampton, Imagine. For with respect to that effort, at least, I say we have nothing to fear, but fear itself.
Yours/AC
Is that devil loathsome fear.
In our horror at the prospect of a triple-X porn store in our midst, we fail to venture forth to even imagine better solutions for an increasingly common problem: how to protect the free flow of expression and ideas, on the one hand, and women and children and the integrity of neighborhoods, on the other hand. Didn’t one of the greatest leaders in our history once declare, “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself!”
A hip-hop club and bar could not be stopped from doing business at 135 King Street and utilizing the entire 6,000 square feet based upon the assumption that its content alone causes bad secondary effects, but many justifiably claim adult establishments can be.
This is so because the Supreme Court’s City of Renton opinion (written by the same justice that would uphold laws criminalizing homosexuality) says that bad secondary effects flow from the pornographic content of an adult establishment inevitably as light from the sun.
The truth is that the content of adult establishments do not cause secondary effects anymore than hip-hop music in clubs and bars. What really makes the difference is how adult establishments and hip-hop clubs and bars are managed and operated.
Nonetheless, many of us seem all too eager to zone adult establishments out of town based upon the content of the materials they sell, alone. Just because the Supreme Court states that a law is constitutional does not make it right. The Supreme Court upheld “separate but equal” laws for decades.
The City’s Memorandum to the City Council justifying the zoning proposal states that the issue here is size. But this is not a big box issue; Cap Video has no plans to expand the size of the existing structure, which really is no larger, and may be smaller, than many establishments nearby.
A far smaller triple-X porn store at 135 King Street, however, would still be allowed. So, what does the zoning law and other proposals accomplish? Not much really unless they become the first step of a progressively more repressive agenda. As one leading council member stated in the last city council meeting, “We should not stop now.”
If history is to be consulted as our guide, yes, no doubt, these measures will be the first step. The tyranny of the majority in a democracy never successfully starts out looking like what it is. It begins by preying upon the people’s most noble sentiments to protect what the public believes to be most vulnerable, be it women and children, public morality and decency, the integrity of neighborhoods, or our sacred “American way of life.”
The goal will become banishing a certain type of adult content entirely because implies that certain types of offensive and harmful sexual conduct should be tolerated, if not accepted and celebrated. But the second step shall be merely to put all of our pornography in places where pedestrian residents and customers of downtown Northampton are highly unlikely to travel, and thus be less likely to consider the merits of its “bad” message for themselves. Oh my …!
Dear City Citizens and Council Members please be free to counter with speech and ideas the speech and ideas that you find offensive and harmful, but by making it far less likely for pedestrians like me to incidentally consider certain ideas and expression, you now embark upon censorship of ideas and expression based upon what you alone deem to be without merit. No, I should have the right to judge for myself, thank you.
Moreover, as a practical matter, enactment of the pending zoning ordinances will no doubt sooner or later prompt litigation by Cap Video or another adult retail vendor intent upon expanding into our community. These measures in practice prove most successful with respect to spawning litigation that makes lawyers, like me, rich.
I say, let’s put off the proposed zoning ordinance until the parties have exhausted themselves on negotiations. After all, what’s the rush? Adult establishments are not grandfathered – protected from subsequent zoning by the City – under Massachusetts law.
With all of the diversity of opinion in America there are few things that we, the people, including pornographers, seem to agree upon, aside from opposing taxation without representation and making lawyers rich for no good purpose.
And there lies the common ground from which the City and Cap Video can begin to negotiate a solution that addresses their respective concerns and interests.
The City could begin, as I have suggested before in The Real Challenge, by asking Cap Video to comply with a licensing scheme similar in certain respects to the licensing scheme applied to bars. It could also ask if Cap Video would invest in that area of King Street in a manner that would advance the City’s hopes and dreams for that area.
If Cap Video had a vested interest in protecting, if not improving upon, the quality of life in the same neighborhood, it would be far less likely to tolerate a drop in the quality of life and the irresponsible management of its adult establishment located in the very same area. But, to my knowledge, the City leaders have not engaged Cap Video in a discussion of this nature.
John Lennon once wrote the song, “Imagine,” expressing for an entire generation our inner most desires. Yes, with all the intellect and creativity we have to draw upon, imagine the difference we can make here and now, just by refusing to repeat the same old litigious insanity … Yes, sweet Northampton, Imagine. For with respect to that effort, at least, I say we have nothing to fear, but fear itself.
Yours/AC
My Boo-Boo
In the city council meeting last week I contended that the award of attorneys’ fees the City of Revere had to pay the plaintiff pornographer for violation of its first amendment rights had been set at $900,000 +; I was wrong, apparently. The issue is still before the trial court after remand by the appellate court. The appellate court reduced the award in certain respects merely because the plaintiff’s attorneys had failed to ask for their fees for certain segments of the litigation at the appropriate times before the appropriate courts. In other respects the appellant court did question, among other things, the necessity for the work that was done by plaintiff’s attorneys.
I stand corrected.
Yours/AC
I stand corrected.
Yours/AC
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
The Point of View of a NPN Neighborhood Father of Young Children
Editors note: Andrew Shelffo lives in Northampton with his wife and two children. He is also the author of The Prospect Perspective Blog on Masslive.com.
The link to his blog is: http://www.masslive.com/northampton/prospect/weblog/
I moved to Northampton in 2001 because I liked the scenic beauty of the area, the slower pace of things (when compared to the New York-Metropolitan area) and the variety of things there are to do here. I chose to move here and raise my family here also because I value the diversity of thought that exists here in Northampton and the generally tolerant attitude around here.
Recently I've been disappointed to find out that one of the qualities that I thought existed here in Happy Valley may not be so abundant as I thought. I'm referring to the quality of intellectual rigor and honesty.
I've spent enough time in college, and in school after college, to know a bad argument when I see it, and the NoPorn people have been foisting a bad argument upon the people of Northampton for weeks now. The truly alarming part, though, is that people, particularly some on the City Council, are buying the argument. I can only assume that's because they haven't taken a good look at what NoPorn is saying.
First of all, despite the smoke screen that NoPorn has been emitting from their website, pornography already exists in great supply in Northampton, both the "good" kind and the "bad" kind, according to NoPorn's own definitions. This means that whatever the outcome of the current debate regarding zoning ordinances, the amount of pornography available in the city won't really change.
This is important to note because much of NoPorn's arguments center around the evil that they consider pornography to be. They blame pornography for everything from divorce to addiction and child molestation. Despite the questionable validity of these beliefs, the fact remains that their actions won't eradicate pornography from Northampton.
The second point is closely related to the first. NoPorn has done a really good job of scaring people into believing that if Capital Video opens a store on King Street, it will only be a matter of time before Northampton is inundated with prostitutes, sex fiends, and criminals because pornography and the stores that sell it bring with them negative "secondary effects." As evidence, NoPorn ignores the stores that sell pornography in town and the lack of negative effects they've had on Northampton and instead has consistently pointed to two things: Kittery, Maine, and their own petition. Kittery Maine had some problems with a Capital Video store in town that had viewing booths. While those problems were very real, the Capital Video store proposed for King Street won't have viewing booths, which seems to make any comparison between Kittery, Maine, and Northampton moot.
The second piece of evidence they throw out when people question the pertinence of the experiences of Kittery. As a matter of fact, they used this very argument on Valley Free Radio the night of October 15th. "Well," the argument goes. "You many not see the similarities, but the 1,100 people who signed our petition do, so that's evidence of the potential harm of secondary effects."
So, let me get this straight: NoPorn scares people into believing that Northampton is going to hell in a handbasket and then uses evidence of that fear to show that we are, in fact, going to hell in a handbasket? Can you say, circular reasoning?
Thanks to NoPorn, there's been a lot of discussion around town lately about movies. NoPorn, in fact, sent out a letter to everyone in Northampton that contained some rather salacious titles and plot summaries of pornographic movies available from Capital Video. I want to thank NoPorn for the recommendations, but I'm not particularly interested in these movies, and if the store does open, I don't plan on shopping there. But I do want to recommend a movie to them, a good, old-fashioned family movie.
One of the highlights of this movie is when the protagonist points out the dangers of playing pool. Playing pool, he says, will lead to degradation. "Look, folks!" he says. "Right here in River City/Trouble with a capital 'T'/And that rhymes with 'P' and that stands for pool!"
In our case, it would be, "Right here in paradise city/Trouble with a capital 'T'/And that rhymes with 'P' and that stand for porn!"
So, rent The Music Man and watch a professional charlatan as he uses song and dance to convince a town that they're going down the wrong path. As you do, I hope you picture the song and dance that the NoPorn people have been doing for the last four months.
The link to his blog is: http://www.masslive.com/northampton/prospect/weblog/
I moved to Northampton in 2001 because I liked the scenic beauty of the area, the slower pace of things (when compared to the New York-Metropolitan area) and the variety of things there are to do here. I chose to move here and raise my family here also because I value the diversity of thought that exists here in Northampton and the generally tolerant attitude around here.
Recently I've been disappointed to find out that one of the qualities that I thought existed here in Happy Valley may not be so abundant as I thought. I'm referring to the quality of intellectual rigor and honesty.
I've spent enough time in college, and in school after college, to know a bad argument when I see it, and the NoPorn people have been foisting a bad argument upon the people of Northampton for weeks now. The truly alarming part, though, is that people, particularly some on the City Council, are buying the argument. I can only assume that's because they haven't taken a good look at what NoPorn is saying.
First of all, despite the smoke screen that NoPorn has been emitting from their website, pornography already exists in great supply in Northampton, both the "good" kind and the "bad" kind, according to NoPorn's own definitions. This means that whatever the outcome of the current debate regarding zoning ordinances, the amount of pornography available in the city won't really change.
This is important to note because much of NoPorn's arguments center around the evil that they consider pornography to be. They blame pornography for everything from divorce to addiction and child molestation. Despite the questionable validity of these beliefs, the fact remains that their actions won't eradicate pornography from Northampton.
The second point is closely related to the first. NoPorn has done a really good job of scaring people into believing that if Capital Video opens a store on King Street, it will only be a matter of time before Northampton is inundated with prostitutes, sex fiends, and criminals because pornography and the stores that sell it bring with them negative "secondary effects." As evidence, NoPorn ignores the stores that sell pornography in town and the lack of negative effects they've had on Northampton and instead has consistently pointed to two things: Kittery, Maine, and their own petition. Kittery Maine had some problems with a Capital Video store in town that had viewing booths. While those problems were very real, the Capital Video store proposed for King Street won't have viewing booths, which seems to make any comparison between Kittery, Maine, and Northampton moot.
The second piece of evidence they throw out when people question the pertinence of the experiences of Kittery. As a matter of fact, they used this very argument on Valley Free Radio the night of October 15th. "Well," the argument goes. "You many not see the similarities, but the 1,100 people who signed our petition do, so that's evidence of the potential harm of secondary effects."
So, let me get this straight: NoPorn scares people into believing that Northampton is going to hell in a handbasket and then uses evidence of that fear to show that we are, in fact, going to hell in a handbasket? Can you say, circular reasoning?
Thanks to NoPorn, there's been a lot of discussion around town lately about movies. NoPorn, in fact, sent out a letter to everyone in Northampton that contained some rather salacious titles and plot summaries of pornographic movies available from Capital Video. I want to thank NoPorn for the recommendations, but I'm not particularly interested in these movies, and if the store does open, I don't plan on shopping there. But I do want to recommend a movie to them, a good, old-fashioned family movie.
One of the highlights of this movie is when the protagonist points out the dangers of playing pool. Playing pool, he says, will lead to degradation. "Look, folks!" he says. "Right here in River City/Trouble with a capital 'T'/And that rhymes with 'P' and that stands for pool!"
In our case, it would be, "Right here in paradise city/Trouble with a capital 'T'/And that rhymes with 'P' and that stand for porn!"
So, rent The Music Man and watch a professional charlatan as he uses song and dance to convince a town that they're going down the wrong path. As you do, I hope you picture the song and dance that the NoPorn people have been doing for the last four months.
The City's Justification
The below is a copy of the Memorandum that the City intends to rely upon to justify the proposed zoning measure to banish adult establishments to the outskirts of town. You know, where few, if any, downtown residents and busniess customers will have ready pedestrian access like they do for any other book and video stores that may locate in the vicinity of 135 King Street. The irony is that the City's justification is that the porn store will inhibit, rather than promote, pedistrial traffic in that section of King Street.
If Cap Video was targeting non-Northampton residential customers, then it would have found far less expensive property to buy or lease further away from downtown, closer to and more visible from Interstate 91. Instead, the store is conveniently located to draw to the King Street neighborhood pedestrian traffic from downtown, as people go about their daily business or their evening festivities.
And the City really presents no hard evidence to justify its claim that the threat of potential secondary effects is any less based upon the mere size of an adult establishment. This is not a big box issue; Cap Video has no plans to expand the size of the existing structure, which really is no larger, and may be smaller, than many of the establishments nearby.
What the City really intends to accomplish is clear. Banish a certain type of adult content because it implies that certain types of offensive sexual conduct should be accepted, if not celebrated. Put it where the residents and customers of downtown Northampton are less likely to travel, and thus enjoy the material and consider the merits of its message. Dear City of Northampton, be free as Nopornnorthampton to counter speech you find offensive and harmful, but how dare you disingenuously contend that this proposed zoning is anything but real censorship of objectionable speech.
The Supreme Court opinion in the case City of Renton upon which the justification for this zoning proposal rests is just as disingenuous. It was written by the same man who voted to uphold criminal laws against homosexuality.
Many of our civic leaders happen to be gay. It seems that many, but not all of them, believe it is now safe to turn upon the very same liberalization of sexuality and free speech that historically allowed them to gain the acceptance of mainstream society that they enjoy today. In fact, they gleefully rely upon the City of Renton Supreme Court opinion to prove that they are not violating free speech.
Now, that is reprehensive.
Yours/A.C.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Long Time Resident Writes to the Gazette
Letter to the Editor
Daily Hampshire Gazette
Opinion@Gazettenet.com
Dear Editor:
Until the recent controversy over the effort by Capital Video to establish a business in Northampton, I took pride in being a long time citizen of this city, having seen over the decades many dramatic and positive changes in the culture and infrastructure, and have always taken pride in the city's values of diversity, tolerance, and inclusion.
The recent opposition to Capital Video’s plans, and the Planning Board's recommendations of 'adult' ordinances, seem in direct opposition to our community's values, and serves to solidify my views that diversity, tolerance, and inclusion have been increasingly defined by the city's 'progressives' liberal circle. There is, in my opinion, rank hypocrisy and sanctimonious statements of opposition to Capital Video by the one-party liberal elite who try to enforce their views on others.
I am proud to have made the first unsolicited contribution to TalkBackNorthampton, a group that I believe is wise in its formulation of the issues, and appropriately raises the issues of unintended consequences on other businesses in Northampton. As a clinical social worker, I am concerned about fairness, diversity, and tolerance. Rank hypocrisy is exhibited when opponents of Capital Video use an elitist argument of "...anywhere but in my backyard...", ie. put the establishment away from the central business district. And, “...doing it for the children...” is, in my opinion, a tired old-saw that political liberals and conservatives, alike, have used for decades.
The article by Drs. J. Wesley and T. Boyd, professors of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, in addition to other scientific research on the effects of pornography, are well-founded. The arguments against pornography are not based in logic, reason, or statistics, but in demagoguery. Ideas and values have consequences, and I hope this fair city can sort them out in a positive manner.
Sincerely,
David Banas
71 Leonard Street
Leeds, MA 01053
Daily Hampshire Gazette
Opinion@Gazettenet.com
Dear Editor:
Until the recent controversy over the effort by Capital Video to establish a business in Northampton, I took pride in being a long time citizen of this city, having seen over the decades many dramatic and positive changes in the culture and infrastructure, and have always taken pride in the city's values of diversity, tolerance, and inclusion.
The recent opposition to Capital Video’s plans, and the Planning Board's recommendations of 'adult' ordinances, seem in direct opposition to our community's values, and serves to solidify my views that diversity, tolerance, and inclusion have been increasingly defined by the city's 'progressives' liberal circle. There is, in my opinion, rank hypocrisy and sanctimonious statements of opposition to Capital Video by the one-party liberal elite who try to enforce their views on others.
I am proud to have made the first unsolicited contribution to TalkBackNorthampton, a group that I believe is wise in its formulation of the issues, and appropriately raises the issues of unintended consequences on other businesses in Northampton. As a clinical social worker, I am concerned about fairness, diversity, and tolerance. Rank hypocrisy is exhibited when opponents of Capital Video use an elitist argument of "...anywhere but in my backyard...", ie. put the establishment away from the central business district. And, “...doing it for the children...” is, in my opinion, a tired old-saw that political liberals and conservatives, alike, have used for decades.
The article by Drs. J. Wesley and T. Boyd, professors of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, in addition to other scientific research on the effects of pornography, are well-founded. The arguments against pornography are not based in logic, reason, or statistics, but in demagoguery. Ideas and values have consequences, and I hope this fair city can sort them out in a positive manner.
Sincerely,
David Banas
71 Leonard Street
Leeds, MA 01053
Cap Video Response To Brooks Letter
Mr. Guarino is a no show for now ... his loss?
Dear Mr. Brooks:
I am writing on behalf of Mr. Guarino in reference to your letter relating to Capital Video's applications to open up its business at 135 King Street in Northampton. Your insight into the issues regarding this application is appreciated.
Capital Video operates many stores throughout New England. Please be assured that the company’s business is committed to the health, safety and welfare of its employees, patrons, and the community, and the business consistently follows and promotes those safeguards that are available and under its control. The company does not display sexual explicit signage, nor are there any depictions of sexual conduct that are visible from the stores. Capital Video recently re-opened its store in Peabody, MA with a new, fresh look, and has been upgrading its stores to provide a very comfortable atmosphere that is pleasing to adult men, women and couples, and to be pleasing aesthically to the community. The business to be built in Northampton will be of the same caliber as Peabody, and should offer a very pleasant atmosphere, presented in a tasteful and appropriate manner.
The company would like to work with the community to develop a cooperative relationship going forward, and will be happy to meet with the Planning Board and the City Council to discuss, and further develop ideas regarding any issues reglating to the proposed store. Capital Video hopes that the community will continue to respect the rights of all of its citizens.
We appreciate your sincere interest in protecting the first amendment constitutional rights for everyone, and appreciate your support in this regard.
Lesley S. Rich, Esq., CPA General Counsel
Capital Video Corporation
1060 Park Avenue Cranston, RI 02910
Dear Mr. Brooks:
I am writing on behalf of Mr. Guarino in reference to your letter relating to Capital Video's applications to open up its business at 135 King Street in Northampton. Your insight into the issues regarding this application is appreciated.
Capital Video operates many stores throughout New England. Please be assured that the company’s business is committed to the health, safety and welfare of its employees, patrons, and the community, and the business consistently follows and promotes those safeguards that are available and under its control. The company does not display sexual explicit signage, nor are there any depictions of sexual conduct that are visible from the stores. Capital Video recently re-opened its store in Peabody, MA with a new, fresh look, and has been upgrading its stores to provide a very comfortable atmosphere that is pleasing to adult men, women and couples, and to be pleasing aesthically to the community. The business to be built in Northampton will be of the same caliber as Peabody, and should offer a very pleasant atmosphere, presented in a tasteful and appropriate manner.
The company would like to work with the community to develop a cooperative relationship going forward, and will be happy to meet with the Planning Board and the City Council to discuss, and further develop ideas regarding any issues reglating to the proposed store. Capital Video hopes that the community will continue to respect the rights of all of its citizens.
We appreciate your sincere interest in protecting the first amendment constitutional rights for everyone, and appreciate your support in this regard.
Lesley S. Rich, Esq., CPA General Counsel
Capital Video Corporation
1060 Park Avenue Cranston, RI 02910
Do You Know ...
That the Advisory Board and the Legal Affairs Committees of the Feminist For Free Expression are made up of the women listed below? Nopornnorthampton and others have questioned the creditability of the FFE’s information we posted below on October 10th, titled "Did You Know ...." We ask you to take notice of the credentials these women possess and then consider the likelihood that the FFE's information is discreditable.
Legal Committee
Ann Beeson (Co-Chair)
ACLU
Jody Kelly
Jenner & Block
Jeanne Baker
Baker & Moscowitz
Jane M. Whicher
ACLU of Illinois
Harriette Dorsen
Bantam Doubleday Dell, and
Former General Counsel of Random House
Amy Adler
NYU School of Law
Marjorie Heins
NCAC
Cathy Crosson
Weston, Sarno, Garrou & DeWitt
Advisory Board
Marilyn Fitterman
Past President, NOW NY
Nadine Strossen
President, American Civil Liberties Union
Betty Friedan
Author, 1921-2006
Joan Nestle
Lesbian Herstory Archives
Legal Committee
Ann Beeson (Co-Chair)
ACLU
Jody Kelly
Jenner & Block
Jeanne Baker
Baker & Moscowitz
Jane M. Whicher
ACLU of Illinois
Harriette Dorsen
Bantam Doubleday Dell, and
Former General Counsel of Random House
Amy Adler
NYU School of Law
Marjorie Heins
NCAC
Cathy Crosson
Weston, Sarno, Garrou & DeWitt
Advisory Board
Marilyn Fitterman
Past President, NOW NY
Nadine Strossen
President, American Civil Liberties Union
Betty Friedan
Author, 1921-2006
Joan Nestle
Lesbian Herstory Archives
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Did You Know...
That half the adult videos bought or rented in the US are done so by women or women in couples? Surprised? TalkBackNorthampton presents the following article from the Feminists for Free Expression Free Speech Pamphlet Series which debunks many widely held beliefs about pornography, such as:
The full text of this highly informative article can be found at Feminists for Free Expression
NP
- Pornography causes violence against women.
- Pornography is responsible for "copycat" behavior
- Pornography degrades women
- Pornography is only (or overwhelmingly) for men
- Pornography inherently exploits and abuses women
- Pornography is inherently "bad"- sexist, violent, etc.
- The "offensive" offensive nature of pornography warrants government action
The full text of this highly informative article can be found at Feminists for Free Expression
NP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
