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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
For whatever it's worth, A/C, I think this is the most important point anyone has made since early November. If porn stores with under 1,000 square feet of porn are not linked to any secondary effects, why is any further action necessary with respect to the King St. store? And if the sub-1,000 square foot King St. store might still be related to secondary effects, why did we pass that zoning ordinance in the first place? Why didn't we pass a *better* ordinance that would actually deal with the actual problems associated with this kind of store?
Keep up the good work.
Post a Comment