SALT LAKE CITY - Blue Boutique, a 20-year-old lingerie and adult-novelty retailer with three locations in Utah, has met opposition from residents seeking to stop the Dec. 15 reopening of the company's location in Sugar House.
According to the Salt Lake Tribune, a debate over community standards raged Tuesday night in the City Council's chambers, where dozens of parents argued that the store poses a threat to children and property values.
However, City Attorney Ed Rutan told residents that little can be done to stop the Blue Boutique location's reopening.
Blue Boutique originally was located at 1080 E. 2100 South in Sugar House, where it operated for 20 years without complaint until the owner of the property decided to redevelop the area, thus forcing the store to relocate.
General Manager Janae Trujillo told AVN Novelty Business that the new location is close to the original location, the most lucrative of the three Utah stores.
"The new location is receiving quite a bit of protest from the local residents, which is interesting because it is literally two blocks up on the same street," she said. "The owners of Blue Boutique decided on the new location based on the fact that it was so close to our original location."
Trujillo said that when Blue Boutique's owners, Tony and Laura Martinez, relocated the West Valley store to a larger building, there was no opposition. Some protest came when the owners were relocating the North Temple location two or three years ago, but it did not receive media attention or last as long as the current protest.
According to Utah law, 15 percent of a store's total retail space may be used to display adult merchandise.
According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Rutan said that for the city to interpret Blue Boutique as a sexually oriented business would fall under a broader interpretation of the city ordinance that would have "serious problems under the vagueness doctrine."
Rutan said the city would have to rewrite its ordinance on sexually oriented businesses, but Blue Boutique would not be affected because it is "vested" after applying for the appropriate city permits. Under the current rules, he said, the city would face an uphill battle in court if it tried to prohibit the business.
