by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright November 25, 2003
All Rights Reserved.

anning lap dances on Sept. 16, the Los Angeles City Council performed an abrupt U-turn Nov. 21, voting 11-0 to reverse the controversial ban, preventing strippers from performing up-close-and-personal adult entertainment. Nightclub owners powered out, gathering enough signatures to put the matter before voters on the March 2 ballot. Fearing retaliation at the polls, the council decided to rescind the 6-foot wall of separation between dancers and clients yet still preserving tough new restrictions, including dismantling VIP rooms, precluding touching of “private parts” and requiring clubs to hire state-licensed security guards and renew annual business permits. “Politics is oftentimes compromise,” said Councilman Dennis Zine, a leading supporter of the lap dance ban, disappointed by the sudden reversal. Zine expressed the regret of activists hoping to clean up neighborhood smut.

      Taking complaints and hearing testimony from neighborhood groups, the council went too far attempting to ban lap dances, a source of extra income for strippers, already suffering from lowered wages. “While this may not be what I want . . . it's a whole lot better than what we have now,” said Zine, flashing his bias against adult entertainment. Council-members shouldn't impose their will—or values—on a public already compromised by heavy-handed morality. Blaming strip clubs for deteriorated neighborhoods goes over the top. Most strip clubs are already in industrial areas, well removed from neighborhood schools, playgrounds and parks. State law already prohibits clubs engaged in full nudity from selling alcoholic beverages. Yet somehow partial nudity, like bikinis and G-strings, qualifies for alcohol consumption. Improving neighborhoods has little to do with stripping in private clubs.

      Expecting the council to legislate morality, concerned citizens should understand the appropriate boundaries of government intervention. Trying to ban lap dancing, council members crossed the line, over-stepping their regulatory authority. Had they stuck to enforcing existing regulations or convened a fact-finding panel to entertain suggestions from both consumers, neighbors and strip club owners, they wouldn't have had to make an embarrassing about-face. “This referendum was used as blackmail against this council,” said WLA resident Vickie Casas, a critic of lap dancing, unable to admit the council overreached its authority. Getting enough signatures on the petition proved, if nothing else, that the vast majority of fair-minded citizens believed the council was out of line banning lap dancing. No matter what anyone thinks of strip clubs, banning lap dancing imposed a heavy moral hand.

      Wasting council business debating the morality of lap dancing makes a powerful argument for rethinking priorities. With so much trash in the streets, so many lost souls camping out in boxes and lean-tos, the council has plenty of other priorities. Turning the council chamber into a soapbox for officious housewives and misplaced activism turns city business on its head. Hearing testimony from strippers or disgruntled residents bellyaching about moral depravity doesn't promote the best use of council business. No one tells council members how to earn a living. Yet council members spoke passionately about banning strippers from receiving tips, leaping to the conclusion that it somehow promotes prostitution or other kinds of hanky-panky. Dancers, like waitresses and cocktail hostesses, rely heavily on tips to supplement paltry incomes, and can't be equated with prostitution.

      There's no reliable evidence that strip clubs promote prostitution or other kinds of untoward behavior. Yet the council's main impetus for imposing a ban on lap dancing involved the phony charge that strip clubs blight otherwise respectable communities. In reality, most strip clubs are found in industrial areas, well removed from residential neighborhoods. Clubs closer to homes keep their business confined to inside the establishments, imposing little effect on surrounding communities. Whether one likes strip clubs or not, they are legitimate businesses providing employment and adding to the tax base. Passing moral judgments is not the business of elected officials, who must remind concerned citizens that free enterprise tolerates diversity. “The stakes are too high for use to lose,” said Councilman Ed Reyes, concerned that a ballot measure would reduce regulations and embarrass the council.

      Big brother can easily cannibalize free enterprise when fair-minded council members lose sight to their primary job of assuring public safety and improving quality of life. Disgruntled residents have a right to their opinions but not a license to infringe upon the rights of legitimate businesses. Council members must do their utmost to promote free enterprise and give businesses every opportunity to succeed. Knee-jerk actions, like banning lap dancing, rob both dancers and clubs from earning a living. “This is just wrong for us to allow any industry to impede the quality of life for our communities,” said Councilman Tony Cardenas, demonstrating, in a nutshell, how moralistic thinking sabotages free enterprise and, yes, common sense. Cardenas must start thinking about the quality of life for businesses and employees, not just community activists looking to get a life.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.