L.A. Strip Clubs Get Reprieve From City Council Action

The Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday failed to pass a bill implimenting, among other things, a ban on lap dancing and a forced six-foot separation between dancers and customers — moves which lawyers for the clubs said would put thousands of dancers out of work and cause many establishments to shut their doors.

"Because of concerns that were expressed by members of the city council reflecting those expressed by the industry, the ordinance was referred back to two committees with the majority of the council approving the concept of further regulation," explained Jeffrey Douglas, chair of the Free Speech Coalition and one of the public speakers during the council session. "There is currently a detailed skeleton for that regulation but how it will actually manifest is going to be brought back to committee. So nothing will be going into effect within 30 days."

The postponement of council action was spearheaded by Ninth District representative Jan Perry, who assured her fellow councilpersons that she was in favor of regulation but wanted to be sure that what was passed would be effective.

"As one who represents an area that has a proliferation of adult entertainment on Alameda, which is an emerging sports entertainment corridor, I have already had many, many requests for all manner of entertainment along that corridor and I want to be able to point to something that will work," Perry told the council. "I'm not making a symbolic vote that is unenforceable, so I need to be able to have the opportunity to participate fully in discussion about six feet, ten feet, whatever. How is that enforceable? Because it is a recurrent problem not only in adult entertainment but in other areas requiring abatement procedures. Do we require an on-site LAPD officer paid for through the general fund to be stationed there? Will enforcement be conducted based on complaints only? How will this take place? These are things I need to know so that I can do something that is substantive." 

Perry never got an answer to her questions, although City Attorney Michael Kleckner made it clear that violations of the six-foot rule, which are not criminal acts under the bill, would impact the police department's decision whether to allow the club to remain open under its police permit. 

But retiring councilman Nate Holden questioned whether the general restrictions in the legislation were good policy. 

"If one city attorney, one attorney crosses the line and they're disbarred, do we disbar all city attorneys, all the attorneys? No," he pointed out. "If one doctor commits malpractice, do we say no doctor can practice anymore? No. We have one restaurant that's been cited over and over again, for good cause, do we say that all restaurants should be closed? No. We don't do that. And your method of controlling these businesses has got to be consistent, and if there is a violation, then that's a matter to be litigated and to be clearly shown."

"Whether it's a six feet rule or a three feet rule or a two feet rule, you're going to be litigating and litigating and litigating," he continued. "When they say, 'You were not standing six feet,' are they going to get out a tape measure? You'll never be successful in that. What you're trying to adopt here will not work. Get an opinion before it happens [from] the Attorney General of the state of California, the legislative counsel of the state of California."

To cure the bill's problems, Perry proposed that the council vote in favor of the bill, which had been sponsored by council president pro tempore Cindy Miscikowski, but refer what she described as the "land use applications" back to the Public Safety and Planning and Land Use Management committees for further study as to their implimentation.

"The reason I want to send these back to committee is to discuss the six-foot rule, to get some practical input as to how this could be enforceable, how this is applied to the entertainers, how does this apply to the cocktail waitresses, how does this apply to the people who may be taking food orders," perry explained. "Where does six foot stop or start? These are the questions that I would like to have answered, because I want to vote on something that I know is enforceable."

"I want to be clear why I did this, because as a council member who represents a district where an enormous amount of time is spent in abatement and revocation proceedings on any number of activities, including some adult entertainment, I know of which I speak," she assured. "And since this is an issue that goes to question of practical application and enforceability. The proliferation of adult entertainment businesses has been a cost to all of us, so I don't want to be confused in my position on this."

Although Perry's amendment was passed by a 9-5 vote, it was clear that most members of the council were anxious to pass club restrictions. Dennis Zine, representing L.A.'s Third District, asked several pointed questions of police representatives, who claimed that the clubs had been largely uncooperative when approached by community and law enforcement leaders with their concerns.

But owners of dance clubs and their representatives strongly disagreed.

"One of the biggest concerns we had is that this was an ordinance which, on the face of it, was going to destroy an industry," commented attorney John Weston, who represents several local clubs, after the hearing. "The industry would have had absolute no opportunity for input [as to the regulations] whatsoever. We felt that the legislation was misguided and that if given the opportunity, we would have been able to sit down, hear what the concerns were and participate in formulating appropriate remedies which would have addressed the asserted problems, but at the same time, done the least kind of negative impact to the industry itself. Because this ordinance was going to put literally thousands and thousands of people out of work, deprive their dependents of the economic support that was appropriate, take businesses away from people who have legitimately invested substantial sums to put these businesses going in a way that was almost unprecedented as far as I know in the city of Los Angeles. So this was a great victory for due process. What was done was to send this back to appropriate committees where, for the first time, the industry will have the opportunity for input and to express itself."

But several members of the public who spoke at the hearing claimed that the club owners and their attorneys had turned a deaf ear to complaints.

"[Club attorney Roger Diamond] told me that our community members are going on moral and religious issues," said West L.A. resident Christi Walden, "and the thought that they're not taking responsibility is just infuriating to us. We don't believe that they have any intention of policing their own products... We cannot believe a word they say because obviously, up to now, they have not made any efforts to help our communities."

"The First Amendment gives these establishments the right to exist as a business," added fellow west-sider Marilyn Sanchez. "This is not in dispute here today. It does not however give them the right to run amok in the city where every other industry has rules and regulation to follow at the risk of being shut down." 

Some opponents of the law saw it as overreaching. 

"I believe that this well-intended motion is misguided as an attempt to regulate activities that happen inside of the business to address issues of concern to some well-intentioned neighbors about activities that happen outside of the business," noted Steven Afriat, of the Afriat Consulting Group, which represents clubs owned by Michael Criddle.

Afriat's point seemed to apply to one of Walden's statements.

"I could speak volumes about the prostitution problems we've encountered in the West L.A. area now that we have six [clubs] in a three-quarter mile area," she said. "In addition to prostitution, these condoms, human excrement on the sidewalks around schools, have been a nightmare. Unfortunately, they're not cleaning up their own act." 

"Well, I can't comment on whether she's right or wrong," responded Weston when asked about Walden's comment later. "If there is prostitution that is going on in any establishment — and the fascinating thing to me is that I represent a vast number of these businesses and am certainly au courant with respect to the others. There have been virtually no prostitution arrests made in Los Angeles at live adult clubs in the last five years, number one. Number two, if there were prostitution going on, it ought to be prosecuted vigorously. The prostitution laws are pretty easy to apply and the penalties are great. Thirdly, at present, it is a line item in existing law that the necessary permit that one requires to present any entertainment is subject to easy quick sure revocation in the event that there's prostitution on the premises. And lastly, even the most draconian remedy, there's something called the Red Light Abatement Statute in California, which is a state statute which permits, on showing of prostitution on premises, a padlocking of the business for a year; you close it down for a year. So there are all sorts of remedies that exist. To the extent that what this homeowner is saying is accurate, there are vast remedies that already exist. I cannot tell you why those have not been utilized, but if there are problems with particular sites, deal with those sites. Don't close down a whole industry which doesn't merit that kind of treatment."

Two of the public speakers noted that they were attending college through their earnings as, in one case, a dancer, and in another, as a club manager.

But perhaps the dance industry's objections were best summarized by Douglas:

"This is a bad policy, it is unconstitutional, and it is preempted by the state law," Douglas said to the council. "If a problem exists, enforce existing laws. These businesses are already as regulated as any in the city of Los Angeles; when, how and where they operate are very closely regulated. We oppose the bill's regulations which are designed to destroy these businesses. They interfere with the communicative rights of the owners, the dancers and the customers. To bar tipping because of the vague accusations of misconduct is the equivalent of barring contributions to the city council because there are allegations of bribery. It is a foolish proposal, destined only for litigation and rejection by the courts as well as the citizens."