Gay sauna in Luton, UK not extended a license: too close to a mosque

[alfred russel]

The road I live off of is rapidly gentrifying, and there is a bit of a shack (aptly titled the Love Shack) selling sex toys.

I've been paying attention to the parking lot, basically wondering who would go there in the age of the internet, and I've noticed the parking lot is always empty. That isn't the case for any other business on the road.

I can only assume it is a front for some sort of criminal enterprise, or the owner also owns the land and is some sort of crank that doesn't want to give up on a business that is basically dead.

[Jacob]

Yeah, it varies widely in the US, of course.

But in general local municipalities tend to have zoning laws that limit what kinds of businesses can go where, and nearly all business have some kind of licensing requirements that have to be met.

Which is why you sometimes get these really bizarre pockets and patterns of businesses that don't seem to make much sense.

Like the rather ridiculous number of adult bookstores along US-15 in Pennsylvania. We drive that road a couple times a year going from Rochester to my sisters in Virginia. I have no idea what demand there is for something like 15 adult bookstores along a couple hundred miles of road through central PA.

There's an intersection a few blocks from my house. There are two "medical marijuana dispensaries" one or two buildings down from the corner. Walking home the other night, I saw a couple of those big "Notice of Development" boards mentioned (with the invitation to comment etc) for two more weed shops. Not sure if it's a planning thing or whatever, but god damn if it's not a lot of weed shops.

Though given the smell wafting over the fence from the young Irish people living next door I guess there's a solid market. But still...

[dps]

Neighbors don't have any say over what you do to your property in the US unless you are part of an infamous Homeowners' Association.

You've never the big signs at empty lots or proposed rehauld of existing buildings inviting "Notice and Comment" on the part of the city or zoning board to get neighbor input before it's granted?  Not to mention the power of neighborhood petitions.

That's what I was thinking, too, but re-reading Yi's comment in context, I think he was talking about things a homeowner might do, like deciding to repaint their house a different color or putting up a storage shed, not a business applying for a zoning exemption or such.

[Jacob]

That's what I was thinking, too, but re-reading Yi's comment in context, I think he was talking about things a homeowner might do, like deciding to repaint their house a different color or putting up a storage shed, not a business applying for a zoning exemption or such.

Fair enough, but the context of the thread is a discussion over a change in business use so the clarification still seems relevant.

[Sheilbh]

Over the years I have seen huge battles erupt over trees, shrubs, large sheds or even just the colour a house is painted.

This all seems natural to me; what other people do with their property also impacts nearby people and their properties, it only seems right that there is some sort of procedure for deciding whether or not a change can go through. I'm surprised that controversy has broken out over this (as a general principle that is, clearly it is very easy for an individual planning decision to be controversial).

This is one of those threads that make me feel there's a vast cultural gap between us and Americans after all. Everytime I read a comment I'm thinking 'but that's anarchy!' And you've forgotten hedges, there's not a village in rural England that hasn't experienced a hedge war.

This is an interesting thread. We've talked before about how planning restrictions have helped to inflate house prices here in the UK, but we haven't discussed (till now) their effects on businesses, home improvements and so on. It is not the case that only gay saunas, sex shops or whatever are targeted by prudes; just about any change requires planning permission and the other folk in the local community have their chance to object.

Yep. I think it's like rates, a really important policy lever that just gets ignored for sexier stuff.

The road I live off of is rapidly gentrifying, and there is a bit of a shack (aptly titled the Love Shack) selling sex toys.

To be honest gentrification, Grindr and (perhaps) increased tolerance is really killing a lot of gay businesses. There's a few quite iconic gay saunas or bars that have shut down all over London recently (off the top of my head Camden, Shoreditch, Hackney and Vauxhall). Part of it is a decline in demand because of the internet and because gay people feel increasingly safe being gay among the general public - and the mix of both, that you can find someone to maybe meet in a generic pub now.

But rising rents of cool areas has forced a few out too despite the fact that they were profitable.

Some gay venues are increasingly applying to get 'community asset' status which makes the like a leisure centre so very difficult to redevelop, or listed status or both. Especially because developers buy up pubs even successful ones and ratchet up the bills until they're forced to close at which point they can be redeveloped into flats. See the Royal Vauxhall Tavern saga.

I think there's been similar in New York with places like the Stonewall Tavern.

[MadImmortalMan]

You can't really live in close proximity with people and not expect to be inconvenienced by the things they do. That's the price you pay for the benefits of a community.

I totally get why you should expect to have some say over whether or not your neighbor can burn the forest next to your house. But I don't get why you should expect to be able to prevent him from painting his house pink or flying a gay pride flag. Even if it does harm your property value. Lots of things affect your home value, like the Fed or Freddie Mac or Countrywide. It's a fluctuating asset.

As far as I'm concerned, if you own your property, you are the only person who gets a say in what you do there. Nobody else has any right. Even if it has side effects that inconvenience them. As long as you don't physically damage other peoples' stuff.

[MadImmortalMan]

Maybe the difference in mentality comes from the aristocratic vs pioneer past.

[Admiral Yi]

Maybe the difference in mentality comes from the aristocratic vs pioneer past.

Medieval guilds and regulation of private life.

[Capetan Mihali]

Maybe the difference in mentality comes from the aristocratic vs pioneer past.

But the US just doesn't exist in the way you've described, though it might be nice..  Besides widespread private institutions taking over regulatory activity from the state (e.g. homeowner's associations), the vast majority of the country is subject to intensive zoning restrictions at the municipal/county level. 

Especially for sex-related businesses.  City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters (1986) is still a good case to look at, where the S. Ct. upheld Renton, Wash.'s regulation prohibiting "adult theaters within 1,000 feet from any residential zone, single- or multiple-family dwelling, church, park, or school" against a First Amendment challenge.  That American regulation sounds, if anything, a lot more restrictive than Luton's British one, don't you think?

You are very much restricted on where you can engage in agricultural, commercial, or industrial activity, not to mention that most commercial activities require permits granted at the municipal or state level (cut to video of cops cuffing the little girl lemonade stand operators).  The home has long ceased to be a castle in America, and you may well not be within your rights to do things like raise livestock in your own backyard.

[Not to mention, depending on the place, restrictions on the destruction of historic buildings, minimum parking or greenspace requirements, minimum numbers of "affordable" units in a multiunit building, restrictions on where persons previously convicted of sex offenses may reside, where halfway houses, methadone clinics, or needle exchanges may be located, etc., etc.]

EDIT:  And suits for nuisance -- e.g. infamously, against hog farms -- can be brought even if you moved in next door to one.  (Though who was there first may be a factor, it's probably just for equitable reasons.  However, state statutes may have radically changed nuisance law from its common-law elements: I'm reading  just now about some state "right to farm" statutes that would do that where agriculture is concerned.)

[Admiral Yi]

Fun fact: Houston has no zoning laws.

[The Brain]

Fun fact: Houston has no zoning laws.

Is that a problem?

[Capetan Mihali]

Fun fact: Houston has no zoning laws.

Wonder what percentage of Houston residents live in HOA-neighborhoods?  I couldn't find from a quick search. (Of course, under Texas law the HOA can institute foreclosure proceedings against your home for non-payment of HOA fees or HOA-issued penalties for failure to keep your house in accordance with their rules for upkeep.  Inwood North Homeowners' Assn' v. Harris, 736 S.W.2d 632 (Tex. 1987) for the proper cite. )

[MadImmortalMan]

I thought most HOAs could foreclose.

Also, HOAs are notorious for mismanaging their funds. You can see the inherent danger there. 

[Sheilbh]

Maybe the difference in mentality comes from the aristocratic vs pioneer past.

I think the key is that England's population density is 1000 per sq mile, the US is under a 100.

But there may be something to it in that I think our understanding of land law is very much that even if you own land multiple other people can have rights over or duties to/from it.

[Razgovory]

You can't really live in close proximity with people and not expect to be inconvenienced by the things they do. That's the price you pay for the benefits of a community.

I totally get why you should expect to have some say over whether or not your neighbor can burn the forest next to your house. But I don't get why you should expect to be able to prevent him from painting his house pink or flying a gay pride flag. Even if it does harm your property value. Lots of things affect your home value, like the Fed or Freddie Mac or Countrywide. It's a fluctuating asset.

As far as I'm concerned, if you own your property, you are the only person who gets a say in what you do there. Nobody else has any right. Even if it has side effects that inconvenience them. As long as you don't physically damage other peoples' stuff.

So if someone built a factory farm next door to you, you'd be cool with that?