QuoteGay sauna's bid for sex entertainment licence prompts 'homophobia and hate'
A gay sauna's bid to gain a sex establishment licence provoked a groundswell of "homophobic and hateful" comments, the Herald & Post can exclusively reveal.
Greenhouse Health Club, which has been running for more than 18 years, attempted to gain the licence so that it can sell sex toys and show adult films within its premises on Crawley Road, Luton.
But after more than 430 Bury Park residents signed a petition to counter the proposal the sauna decided to withdraw its application.
One of those who signed the petition claimed that Greenhouse "will bring unpleasant diseases to our communities", while another slammed the owner for having "no shame" and attempting to expand the business with something "so disgusting near and around holy surroundings."
Others labelled the sauna "immoral", "crazy" and "dangerous for our children".
One of the petition's signatories wrote that homosexuality stems from "brain diseases/malfunction" and "incorrect thinking".
The comments have been denounced by LGBT rights charity Stonewall, which told the Herald & Post that the language used is "homophobic and hateful".
A spokesperson said: "These attitudes can be extremely damaging and can alienate and ostracise people.
"We hope that this is something that the local authorities in Luton hope to solve as soon as possible so that all LGBT locals feel able to be themselves and are accepted without exception."
Luton Borough Council says that in addition to the petition, it received 103 objection notices which cited concerns over "cultural sensitivity", the sauna's "proximity to places of worship" and worries "about the number of families with young children living nearby".
Prior to the withdrawal of the application Beds Police told LBC that it had no objections to the proposal and that in the last year just two crimes have been reported at the sauna.
One was a report of theft and the other was of alleged domestic violence.
In a letter PC Esther Read told the council: "We anticipate that they will continue to operate in a professional manner and liase with the police and other responsible authorities when required, as they have in previous years."
One of those who lobbied LBC to reject the application is newly elected police and crime commissioner Kathryn Holloway, who wrote to the council on March 28 after being approached by a member of a "very significant Luton mosque".
Mrs Holloway wrote: "Luton Borough Council is usually particularly aware of matters of cultural sensitivity.
"I trust therefore that you will fully understand that, given the large and devout Muslim population in this area of the borough, there is naturally a high level of religious and cultural opposition to such a business among these residents which needs to be respected, in my view."
The PCC, who said that the application had caused "widespread offence and very deep concern", added her concerns that if Greenhouse was handed the licence "a number of potential policing issues may arise".
Speaking to the Herald & Post, Mrs Holloway asserted that she did not know Greenhouse had been targeted with homophobic comments.
The PCC said: "I would never support any homophobic literature and I had no sight of any such material.
"I agreed to represent residents in Biscot as they felt incredibly strongly about it.
"I would have taken the exact same stance if it had been a heterosexual establishment."
Mrs Holloway added: "I think this is also a win for the wider gay community as this establishment is not representative of them as a whole."
Read more: http://www.lutontoday.co.uk/news/business/business-news/gay-sauna-s-bid-for-sex-entertainment-licence-prompts-homophobia-and-hate-1-7403295#ixzz4AYMXaUvG
Gotta "love" seeing the hard-won sexual freedoms being rolled back in the name of islamisation of Europe.
Too bad for the Caliphate of the United Kingdom. :P
Quote from: 11B4V on June 03, 2016, 04:18:15 PM
Too bad for the Caliphate of the United Kingdom. :P
Maybe they should leave the EU after all. At least on the continent the tide is turning rather visibly against this idiocy.
Incorrect thinking does seem to be a major issue there.
If I were a gay man in Luton, I would probably seriously consider voting for BNP after this.
Well gay saunas are hotbeds of unpleasant diseases but fortunately you don't have to worry that much if you aren't having sex with gay men.
Quote from: Martinus on June 03, 2016, 04:29:33 PM
If I were a gay man in Luton, I would probably seriously consider voting for BNP after this.
Yeah but you are an idiot.
Quote from: garbon on June 03, 2016, 04:31:39 PM
Well gay saunas are hotbeds of unpleasant diseases but fortunately you don't have to worry that much if you aren't having sex with gay men.
Also the saunas still there and presumably licensed :mellow:
Though saunas are closing down all over the country. Another venerable sex trade killed by the internet.
QuoteYeah but you are an idiot.
Yeah.
Seems like a dumb thing to need a license for.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 03, 2016, 04:48:47 PM
Seems like a dumb thing to need a license for.
To sell sex toys and show porn? :mellow:
Quote"I trust therefore that you will fully understand that, given the large and devout Muslim population in this area of the borough, there is naturally a high level of religious and cultural opposition to such a business among these residents which needs to be respected, in my view."
I do not understand the need to be respected here. It is not on the Mosque's property. I presume it would be inside the institution and not visible from the Mosque. So why would the Mosque culture need to be respected for something that has nothing to do with it? :unsure:
I mean I presume if you are against sex toys and porn you are probably not attending gay spas in the first place so why would this bother anybody? Why not let the spa do what it likes?
QuoteTo sell sex toys and show porn?
Are there any other things a store cannot sell if somebody in the area demands they not sell it over there? I mean I presume nobody is entering this spa that is not legally able to view porn and buy sex toys. This sure seems weird to me but hey we have religious nutcases who demand other people do or do not do things that have nothing to do with them as well.
Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2016, 07:52:32 PMAre there any other things a store cannot sell if somebody in the area demands they not sell it over there? I mean I presume nobody is entering this spa that is not legally able to view porn and buy sex toys. This sure seems weird to me but hey we have religious nutcases who demand other people do or do not do things that have nothing to do with them as well.
Cigarettes, guns, alcohol I'm sure there's others. It's not if people object but they'll have to apply for a license and put up a sign or an ad in the local paper or something similar to see if there are any objections from the neighbours. The decision I think would normally be made by a local government civil servant but if there's enough objections it might get kicked up to the council to vote on.
Given the description, and I could be wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't also a planning application sort of thing to add to the use of the building. It might have planning permission as a sauna but not as an adult cinema. Ironically in my area of London there's a big campaign to oppose planning application to change the use of a building from a pub/bar to a place of worship. The pubs are already closed but people are still sending out petitions to preserve this valuable community resource and stop it from being turned into a Latino or African Pentecostal Church :lol:
There's lots of restrictions on what you can do with your property, especially as a business, basically to protect the property rights of the people around you.
Edit: I'm intrigued do these restrictions not exist at all in the US? Obviously it's not the case here but it would have a big effect on the price of your property if that lovely bakery down the road suddenly sold up and became a sex shop :o
Have these people never heard of hammams?? Not like any gay sex went on in there, no sir.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 03, 2016, 08:10:49 PM
There's lots of restrictions on what you can do with your property, especially as a business, basically to protect the property rights of the people around you.
Far, far too many. It seems to me the primary rights to be protected should be those of the property owner, not the bitchy neighbors.
Besides, this seems overly prudish for a largely secular western european nation anyway. Even in baptist Texas they've got strip clubs next door to elementary schools.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 03, 2016, 08:14:51 PM
Even in baptist Texas they've got strip clubs next door to elementary schools.
Really? I'm skeptical, even in zoning-free Houston. In most of America, sex-oriented businesses are subject to a lot of placement restrictions. And these have been upheld by the Supreme Court against First Amendment challenges in a series of cases in the 70s.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 03, 2016, 08:14:51 PM
Far, far too many. It seems to me the primary rights to be protected should be those of the property owner, not the bitchy neighbors.
Disagree. I think there's a balance to be struck between the property right of the owner and the rights of everyone else to the peaceful enjoyment of their property. That also has to be balanced against the wider interests: preservation of the identity of a community/area v new development for example.
You can't just enjoy your land however you want if that affects the enjoyment of my land.
QuoteEven in baptist Texas they've got strip clubs next door to elementary schools.
Not a hope in hell here. I mean for a start we have far, far fewer strip clubs.
A big issue at the minute in London at least is the huge increase in numbers of betting shops following a liberalisation of the planning laws under New Labour. Now generally seen as probably a mistake.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 03, 2016, 08:14:51 PM
Besides, this seems overly prudish for a largely secular western european nation anyway. Even in baptist Texas they've got strip clubs next door to elementary schools.
It makes it easier for the underpaid teachers to get to their second job. :yes:
teachers make a decent living with benefits, don't they?
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 03, 2016, 08:10:49 PM
Edit: I'm intrigued do these restrictions not exist at all in the US? Obviously it's not the case here but it would have a big effect on the price of your property if that lovely bakery down the road suddenly sold up and became a sex shop :o
Of course they do. It's all in zoning laws. Typically it's a municipal thing. People really don't want to live next to a fertilizer plant. People move out into the country where they are free not to have zoning. Then someone builds a factory farm next door, the local water becomes tainted and it stinks of pig shit for three miles 'round. Then Raz laughs at the bumpkin dipshits when they demand someone do something, but nobody can because they live in the county.
The OP said they withdrew the application themselves. How is that an example of Islamization or whatever?
Would this be some terrible thing if the story was exactly the same except the people objecting were local Christians?
Quote from: LaCroix on June 03, 2016, 09:39:55 PM
teachers make a decent living with benefits, don't they?
Some of them probably get bored over the summer.
Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2016, 10:04:27 PM
The OP said they withdrew the application themselves. How is that an example of Islamization or whatever?
Would this be some terrible thing if the story was exactly the same except the people objecting were local Christians?
I like that there were over 530 people who came out against the license, but since one of them was a member of the nearby mosque - ERMEGERD MOOSLIMS EVERYWHERE!!!
Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2016, 10:04:27 PM
Would this be some terrible thing if the story was exactly the same except the people objecting were local Christians?
yes.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on June 03, 2016, 08:19:05 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 03, 2016, 08:14:51 PM
Even in baptist Texas they've got strip clubs next door to elementary schools.
Really? I'm skeptical, even in zoning-free Houston. In most of America, sex-oriented businesses are subject to a lot of placement restrictions. And these have been upheld by the Supreme Court against First Amendment challenges in a series of cases in the 70s.
Yeah, and typical restrictions don't allow porn shops, strip clubs, etc., within a certain distance of a school or house of worship. But those restrictions would apply equally to those sex shops that cater to a straight clientele as those that cater to gays, and it wouldn't matter what religion the place of worship is part of.
OTOH, some places don't allow a new sex shop within a certain distance of an existing sex shop. That's probably actually a better approach. An area with just a single porn shop is probably just as safe as if the shop wasn't there, whereas restrictions that cause porn shops to cluster tend to lead to red-light districts which can be relatively dangerous.
Humans seem to have an inborn proclivity to want to tell each other what to do. Well, many of them do.
Isn't part of maturity reaching that stage where you stop trying to solve problems by fixing the world around you to suit yourself rather than trying to adapt to suit your surroundings? I think the concept of licensing was created by tribal-thinking immature people. It takes a certain amount of narcissistic petulance to think you should have a say in what your neighbors do on their own property if they aren't hurting you.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 04, 2016, 12:23:56 AM
I think the concept of licensing was created by tribal-thinking immature people.
I think it more likely it was created by governments to generate revenue.
If you're basically interested in telling people what to do, you'd want to ban stuff, not license it.
Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2016, 10:04:27 PMWould this be some terrible thing if the story was exactly the same except the people objecting were local Christians?
Of course. Seriously, are you really trying to attack my position from the angle that I am too soft on Christians? :lol:
I don't think it's unreasonable to require a license for this stuff, but it seems bizarre to me to let the neighbors have a say in something like this.
Does London have areas that are zoned purely commercial, or are businesses and residences all jumbled together?
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2016, 02:36:58 AM
I don't think it's unreasonable to require a license for this stuff, but it seems bizarre to me to let the neighbors have a say in something like this.
Yeah
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 03, 2016, 08:14:51 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 03, 2016, 08:10:49 PM
There's lots of restrictions on what you can do with your property, especially as a business, basically to protect the property rights of the people around you.
Far, far too many. It seems to me the primary rights to be protected should be those of the property owner, not the bitchy neighbors.
Besides, this seems overly prudish for a largely secular western european nation anyway. Even in baptist Texas they've got strip clubs next door to elementary schools.
The UK is not secular, not largely anyways. :smarty: :frog: Though I thought Luton would not be as bad as Ulster/Northern Ireland.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on June 03, 2016, 08:19:05 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 03, 2016, 08:14:51 PM
Even in baptist Texas they've got strip clubs next door to elementary schools.
Really? I'm skeptical, even in zoning-free Houston. In most of America, sex-oriented businesses are subject to a lot of placement restrictions. And these have been upheld by the Supreme Court against First Amendment challenges in a series of cases in the 70s.
For a while there was a sex store near city hall in my home town. I think it when out of business though as being on the main street there was a name and shame campaign or so I imagine.
In my hometown some years ago there was a minor kerfuffle when someone realised that the big expensive new school they were building was next to a swingers club.
Since the swingers were there first they were allowed to remain.
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2016, 02:36:58 AM
I don't think it's unreasonable to require a license for this stuff, but it seems bizarre to me to let the neighbors have a say in something like this.
Especially given that the business was there first.
Quote from: Martinus on June 04, 2016, 05:20:56 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2016, 02:36:58 AM
I don't think it's unreasonable to require a license for this stuff, but it seems bizarre to me to let the neighbors have a say in something like this.
Especially given that the business was there first.
The article notes that prior to withdrawal of the application, the council said it had no objections to the proposal.
Should people in a neighbourhood be unable to voice an opinion about something they may or may not like to have near them?
Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2016, 05:31:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 04, 2016, 05:20:56 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2016, 02:36:58 AM
I don't think it's unreasonable to require a license for this stuff, but it seems bizarre to me to let the neighbors have a say in something like this.
Especially given that the business was there first.
The article notes that prior to withdrawal of the application, the council said it had no objections to the proposal.
Should people in a neighbourhood be unable to voice an opinion about something they may or may not like to have near them?
People can say what they like. The question is whether the authorities should listen to that voice. When people are coming into a neighbourhood, I think they are the ones who should adjust, not expect those already there to adjust.
Quote from: Martinus on June 04, 2016, 05:34:52 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2016, 05:31:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 04, 2016, 05:20:56 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2016, 02:36:58 AM
I don't think it's unreasonable to require a license for this stuff, but it seems bizarre to me to let the neighbors have a say in something like this.
Especially given that the business was there first.
The article notes that prior to withdrawal of the application, the council said it had no objections to the proposal.
Should people in a neighbourhood be unable to voice an opinion about something they may or may not like to have near them?
People can say what they like. The question is whether the authorities should listen to that voice. When people are coming into a neighbourhood, I think they are the ones who should adjust, not expect those already there to adjust.
I guess that is one way to stop gentrification then. I don't really see why first on the scene should have priority.
Doesn't "gentrification" imply cultural and social improvement?
Not an improvement for people/businesses that get displaced.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2016, 03:26:46 AM
Does London have areas that are zoned purely commercial, or are businesses and residences all jumbled together?
It's all jumbled, there's no zoning anywhere in the UK I don't think. Local authorities will have development plans that may prioritise certain sorts of development in an area but planning applications would be, I think, allowed from anyone.
QuoteEspecially given that the business was there first.
Why do you think that?
Quote from: Martinus on June 04, 2016, 12:56:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2016, 10:04:27 PMWould this be some terrible thing if the story was exactly the same except the people objecting were local Christians?
Of course. Seriously, are you really trying to attack my position from the angle that I am too soft on Christians? :lol:
No, I think you have something of a hair trigger when it comes to Muslims.
I don't think the story has anything in it that I find objectionable.
Some guy wanted a sex shop permit? Good for him.
Some local people NIMBAed and objected?
They have a right to express their opinions.
Guy withdrew application because he decided it wasn't worth the exposure or whatever? His right.
Where is the terrible injustice here? I cannot find it.
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2016, 09:20:47 AM
I don't think the story has anything in it that I find objectionable.
Possible homophobia in the petition.
Quote from: Martinus on June 04, 2016, 05:20:56 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 04, 2016, 02:36:58 AM
I don't think it's unreasonable to require a license for this stuff, but it seems bizarre to me to let the neighbors have a say in something like this.
Especially given that the business was there first.
The business was not there first, a different business was there.
They wanted a license to change the nature of the business, that makes it a different business, and certainly the people who live there have the right to express their opinion about the new business.
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2016, 09:20:47 AM
They have a right to express their opinions.
Guy withdrew application because he decided it wasn't worth the exposure or whatever? His right.
Where is the terrible injustice here? I cannot find it.
I don't recall saying anything about anybody's rights. I was just saying going after a local business for doing something that is not going to impact you at all was a dick move. But of course you can express your opinion that all gays should be shot, doesn't make it something I should support just because it is your right to do it.
Last I checked I can disagree with people who are doing things that are within their rights. Seems like a strawman.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 04, 2016, 12:23:56 AM
Humans seem to have an inborn proclivity to want to tell each other what to do. Well, many of them do.
Isn't part of maturity reaching that stage where you stop trying to solve problems by fixing the world around you to suit yourself rather than trying to adapt to suit your surroundings? I think the concept of licensing was created by tribal-thinking immature people. It takes a certain amount of narcissistic petulance to think you should have a say in what your neighbors do on their own property if they aren't hurting you.
No that's just a sign you are either a college age kid/given up on life.
it's pretty common for local neighborhood folk to not want sex shops nearby
Quote from: LaCroix on June 04, 2016, 12:27:31 PM
it's pretty common for local neighborhood folk to not want sex shops nearby
Yeah
The parts quoted from the petition/letters make it sound like the Mooslimbs object not so much to porn and sex, but the fact that it was related to homosexuality though.
Quote from: Martinus on June 04, 2016, 12:54:31 PM
The parts quoted from the petition/letters make it sound like the Mooslimbs object not so much to porn and sex, but the fact that it was related to homosexuality though.
So? Is it extra objectionable because they object to the kind of sex you like as opposed to the kind of sex they like?
This is such a mountain out of a molehill.
Who cares? So we find out that in a given population there are a bunch of prudes. Shocking! Who would have thought it!
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2016, 01:00:20 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 04, 2016, 12:54:31 PM
The parts quoted from the petition/letters make it sound like the Mooslimbs object not so much to porn and sex, but the fact that it was related to homosexuality though.
So? Is it extra objectionable because they object to the kind of sex you like as opposed to the kind of sex they like?
This is such a mountain out of a molehill.
Who cares? So we find out that in a given population there are a bunch of prudes. Shocking! Who would have thought it!
Some of the comments quoted go beyond people being a "bunch of prudes". I am generally against penalising people for speech, no matter how hateful or offensive it is - but British legislators disagree, and anyone else making this type of comments about gay people would have been prosecuted.
There are two separate issues here. The objections to the change of use by local people are absolutely standard procedure here in the UK. Some strip joints faced similar difficulties here in Preston and had to go for more central locations in clearly commercial zones. Similarly a new mosque in the Fulwood suburb had planning permission denied for many years whilst ways were sought to overcome local opposition to the development.
I agree with the point that some of the comments were definitely hate speech under our current laws though. If similarly offensive comments had been made by other parties about other groups prosecutions would have been quite likely. I don't like the hate speech laws myself, but a selective application of them based on some spurious hierarchy of victimhood has to be the worst way possible of arranging things.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 05, 2016, 01:29:34 AM
There are two separate issues here. The objections to the change of use by local people are absolutely standard procedure here in the UK. Some strip joints faced similar difficulties here in Preston and had to go for more central locations in clearly commercial zones. Similarly a new mosque in the Fulwood suburb had planning permission denied for many years whilst ways were sought to overcome local opposition to the development.
I agree with the point that some of the comments were definitely hate speech under our current laws though. If similarly offensive comments had been made by other parties about other groups prosecutions would have been quite likely. I don't like the hate speech laws myself, but a selective application of them based on some spurious hierarchy of victimhood has to be the worst way possible of arranging things.
Ok, that I agree with 100%.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 05, 2016, 01:29:34 AM
I agree with the point that some of the comments were definitely hate speech under our current laws though. If similarly offensive comments had been made by other parties about other groups prosecutions would have been quite likely. I don't like the hate speech laws myself, but a selective application of them based on some spurious hierarchy of victimhood has to be the worst way possible of arranging things.
Disagree. The law on hate speech on sexuality is more or less the same as hate speech on religion. It's against threatening words/behaviour that is intended to stir up hatred. So being insulting or abusive and intending to stir up hatred isn't enough; neither is being recklessly threatening.
It's very analogous to the religious hatred law and a judge said of that law that 'It doesn't prohibit public discussion, criticism, antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or their followers.'
The comments are homophobic which is wrong, but I don't think they're anywhere near hate speech under our laws. I don't see any threat or intent.
The other legislation often used for speech which doesn't meet the test for hate speech is the 86 Public Order Act - it was what was used to prosecute John Terry for example - but I don't think that would apply either. As you'd expect it's about public order so it really requires there to people present. I don't think a petition would qualify.
.....and yet Paul Gascoigne, for all his fragile mental health, is up before the beak for a pitiful joke :
http://www.expressandstar.com/news/crime/2016/06/04/paul-gascoigne-charged-over-racial-joke-at-wolverhampton-civic-hall-show/
:hmm:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 05, 2016, 07:27:32 AM
.....and yet Paul Gascoigne, for all his fragile mental health, is up before the beak for a pitiful joke :
http://www.expressandstar.com/news/crime/2016/06/04/paul-gascoigne-charged-over-racial-joke-at-wolverhampton-civic-hall-show/
:hmm:
Looking into that it looks like he's being charged under the Public Order Act - which is the one that does prohibit threatening, abusive or insulting words/behaviour to a person who can see/hear it and is likely to be caused distress by it. Then onto that they've tagged on that it's racially aggravated which will just potentially alter the sentencing.
But that's different than our hate speech laws. The hate speech laws carry long custodial sentences, the public order generally doesn't and is mostly a fine though you can get a short sentence. Also the hate speech laws the CPS will very often prosecute if they've the evidence regardless, the Public Order Act they're far more lead by the victim. Also I could be wrong but hate speech is almost certainly a Crown Court case whereas most public order offences will be before a magistrate.
I don't think the petition comes anywhere near hate crime and, unlike in Gazza's case, there's no-one for it to cause offence or upset to. Unless those comments were posted through his letterbox the petition would just get sent to a council office.
I see, so Gazza's error was to be crass in a (very) public place. I expect he will get off anyway.
Basically. Same as John Terry and Anton Ferdinand - and again the CPS are more likely to follow the victim.
The law originally was to deal with football hooligans who weren't actually breaking the law until a fight started. It was all about giving police powers to arrest people way before then. Obviously there's a big debate to be had over whether it's used in an appropriate way now but that is distinct from the hate speech laws which are very narrow (racial hatred is slightly broader).
It's also why despite the big kerfuffle over especially the law on religious hatred the main focus of free speech campaigners now seems to be reforming Section 5.
Edit: Here we are:
http://reformsection5.org.uk/#?sl=1
It's a shame that of all the internet gays Marti likes he found Milo instead of Peter Tatchell who is, of course, supporting the Reform Section 5 campaign :wub:
In other news: http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/ztvdg82
England, the nation of cucks. :lol:
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2016, 01:00:20 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 04, 2016, 12:54:31 PM
The parts quoted from the petition/letters make it sound like the Mooslimbs object not so much to porn and sex, but the fact that it was related to homosexuality though.
So? Is it extra objectionable because they object to the kind of sex you like as opposed to the kind of sex they like?
This is such a mountain out of a molehill.
Who cares? So we find out that in a given population there are a bunch of prudes. Shocking! Who would have thought it!
Because they are launching political activities to make life difficult for other people for no particular reason? :hmm:
Is it 'nobody cares' when the fundies over here shut down sex education programs to you? I just do not get it you have even gone after me for my religious beliefs and I am not out doing stuff like this. What made you so tolerant now concerning something that typifies why they create problems.
there is a particular reason--neighborhood folk don't want a sex shop in their neighborhood. keeps neighborhood clean, etc. same reason why people rally against half-way homes built in their neighborhoods
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2016, 12:58:09 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2016, 01:00:20 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 04, 2016, 12:54:31 PM
The parts quoted from the petition/letters make it sound like the Mooslimbs object not so much to porn and sex, but the fact that it was related to homosexuality though.
So? Is it extra objectionable because they object to the kind of sex you like as opposed to the kind of sex they like?
This is such a mountain out of a molehill.
Who cares? So we find out that in a given population there are a bunch of prudes. Shocking! Who would have thought it!
Because they are launching political activities to make life difficult for other people for no particular reason? :hmm:
Is it 'nobody cares' when the fundies over here shut down sex education programs to you? I just do not get it you have even gone after me for my religious beliefs and I am not out doing stuff like this. What made you so tolerant now concerning something that typifies why they create problems.
Because they are Mooslimbs and for regressive left Mooslimbs rank higher on the ladder of oppression than fags. :secret:
White Christian straight men are at the bottom - sorry Valmy. :console:
Quote from: LaCroix on June 05, 2016, 01:20:24 PM
there is a particular reason--neighborhood folk don't want a sex shop in their neighborhood. keeps neighborhood clean, etc. same reason why people rally against half-way homes built in their neighborhoods
Isn't that reason rather immoral?
(1) was in response to "no particular reason"
(2) don't see how it's necessarily immoral
It's an extension of the "we don't want the {jewsblacksgaysfelonsforeignersetc} in our neighborhood" impulse. To me, that's immoral.
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2016, 12:58:09 PMBecause they are launching political activities to make life difficult for other people for no particular reason? :hmm:
How are they launching a political activity? It's a normal part of the process for any planning application to open up for consultation - even getting an extension or building a new conservatory. Should they not exercise that right because it's a predominately Muslim area and this is a gay business?
And again I think there are many reasons why you wouldn't want a sex shop in your area, beyond religion.
QuoteIt's an extension of the "we don't want the {jewsblacksgaysfelonsforeignersetc} in our neighborhood" impulse. To me, that's immoral.
I think that's more the case in the numerous examples of campaigns against Mosques opening in a neighbourhood than here. There is already a gay sauna and there will continue to be a gay sauna.
I don't think this is any more immoral than people objecting to pubs, off-licenses or betting shops in their neighbourhood.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 05, 2016, 02:01:33 PMI don't think this is any more immoral than people objecting to pubs, off-licenses or betting shops in their neighbourhood.
yup
(edit)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan"we don't want the {jewsblacksgaysfelonsforeignersetc} in our neighborhood" impulse. To me, that's immoral.
replace {jewsblacksgaysfelonsforeignersetc} with {scum/bad people/etc.}. it's a fairly normal attitude
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 05, 2016, 02:01:33 PM
There is already a gay sauna and there will continue to be a gay sauna.
For now, because the Muslim community is not yet large and influential enough to force it to close. Something to keep in mind when considering the wisdom of bringing in millions more of these people.
Grindr's more likely to shut down gay saunas than Muslims I'm afraid.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 05, 2016, 03:34:25 PM
Grindr's more likely to shut down gay saunas than Muslims I'm afraid.
Possibly, but I think there's a difference between a business closing due to lack of demand and being forced to close due to political/religious pressure. I'm sorry if you don't see the difference or consider it to be relevant.
Quote from: LaCroix on June 05, 2016, 02:15:07 PM
replace {jewsblacksgaysfelonsforeignersetc} with {scum/bad people/etc.}. it's a fairly normal attitude
That's the same thing.
There are some primaries going on here, and there are these ads on the radio for one Republican running against another one. The ad is for the challenger and against the incumbent. What happened is the incumbent Republican is on the board of a charity that runs some halfway houses for people getting out of jail. These properties are in various places around and I guess one or more of them must be in some sensitive suburbia because the ads against the guy accuse him of "putting felons in residential neighborhoods". What a pile of bigoted shit. Where are the felons supposed to live? The black part of town? I hope that guy somehow finds himself getting out of jail and looking for a place to live.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 05, 2016, 02:01:33 PM
How are they launching a political activity? It's a normal part of the process for any planning application to open up for consultation - even getting an extension or building a new conservatory. Should they not exercise that right because it's a predominately Muslim area and this is a gay business?
They shouldn't exercise the right because it is petty and mean spirited. There are any things I have a right to do that I still shouldn't do.
QuoteAnd again I think there are many reasons why you wouldn't want a sex shop in your area, beyond religion.
But this is an already existing business just wanting to offer somethign extra to an already existing customer base. How would that impact the area at all? It wouldn't. They are just fucking with them because they generally don't like them.
QuoteI don't think this is any more immoral than people objecting to pubs, off-licenses or betting shops in their neighbourhood.
I think it is shitty and mean spirited. The extent that being an asshole is immoral I guess is up in the air.
Being a Texan I see this kind of shit all the time. It is very tiresome.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 05, 2016, 01:52:13 PM
It's an extension of the "we don't want the {jewsblacksgaysfelonsforeignersetc} in our neighborhood" impulse. To me, that's immoral.
What are the moral reasons?
So it's immoral not to want felons in your neighborhood, where they will increase the crime rate and drive down property value?
Quote from: Ancient Demon on June 05, 2016, 03:39:20 PM
Possibly, but I think there's a difference between a business closing due to lack of demand and being forced to close due to political/religious pressure. I'm sorry if you don't see the difference or consider it to be relevant.
And there's a difference between a business being forced to close due to political/religious pressure and a business being denied a license to expand into a different business because it's deemed not to fit the neighbourhood character. The second may be immoral and all, but it happens pretty damn frequently in all sorts of places and few people bat an eye. You try opening a porn-shop near a church in most places in America, and see how likely you are to be granted the necessary permits; and see if adding strippers to your bar is going to pass permitting if there's a concerned church or school nearby.
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. 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).
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.
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2016, 12:58:09 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2016, 01:00:20 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 04, 2016, 12:54:31 PM
The parts quoted from the petition/letters make it sound like the Mooslimbs object not so much to porn and sex, but the fact that it was related to homosexuality though.
So? Is it extra objectionable because they object to the kind of sex you like as opposed to the kind of sex they like?
This is such a mountain out of a molehill.
Who cares? So we find out that in a given population there are a bunch of prudes. Shocking! Who would have thought it!
Because they are launching political activities to make life difficult for other people for no particular reason? :hmm:
There are very particular reasons, actually. They don't want a sex shop in their neighborhood.
Quote
Is it 'nobody cares' when the fundies over here shut down sex education programs to you?
You think there is some kind of relevant similarity between sex education in schools and private business zoning of sex shops???
Quote
I just do not get it you have even gone after me for my religious beliefs and I am not out doing stuff like this. What made you so tolerant now concerning something that typifies why they create problems.
Tolerant? Tolerant of what?
Tolerant of people right to express their opinions about zoning and lincensing in their neighborhoods?
Is that really surprising to you that I would look at a story like this and think "Yawn".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2016, 12:39:54 AM
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.
Mere anarchy, sir.......Godless, republican anarchy ;)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2016, 12:39:54 AM
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.
It would clearly be less of an issue with detached houses on large plots in new suburbs. What happens in the historic districts of (eg) New York City though?
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2016, 06:59:31 PM
So it's immoral not to want felons in your neighborhood, where they will increase the crime rate and drive down property value?
I think the immorality comments derive from the fact that nobody necessarily knows with certainty that felons, addicts, etc. will increase the crime rate and drive down property value. but, I don't think it's "immoral" to fear that inviting perceived scum into the neighborhood will bring about a bad result
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 06, 2016, 01:04:52 AM
It would clearly be less of an issue with detached houses on large plots in new suburbs. What happens in the historic districts of (eg) New York City though?
Then you have to suck dick at the Historic Preservation Whatever, but I still don't think neighbors have any say.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 05, 2016, 11:55:41 PM
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. 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 was a license application rather than a planning one, but I agree generally.
In the UK we have a plan led system. Planning authorities publish their planning policy. Applications for development should be in accordance with that policy. If so, then they are entitled to permission. Neighbours and other stakeholders are consulted but the only representations that can legitimately be taken into account are ones which are based on policy.
Because the decisions are made by local politicians, practice and theory don't always marry and a campaign against an application can succeed even if it has policy support. Hence there are quite a lot of appeals on unpopular schemes - these are decided by a professional inspector following a public inquiry.
There are lots of problems with our planning system but consultation is not one of them. Development is vastly better than it was in the 1950s-80s when developers and local authorities pretty much ignored what local had to say.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2016, 12:39:54 AM
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.
:huh: 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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2016, 12:39:54 AM
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.
I don't think that's entirely true. When I was in New York, I got notifications all the time about new applications for alcohol licensing and were invited to attend community meetings to voice our opinions.
In Spain neighbors have a "public exposition" period where they can voice their opinion before a rezoning or property redevelopment permission is granted. It is non-binding and it doesn't extent to business permits, though.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2016, 07:13:57 AM
I have no idea what demand there is for something like 15 adult bookstores along a couple hundred miles of road through central PA.
Truckers.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on June 06, 2016, 07:40:47 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2016, 07:13:57 AM
I have no idea what demand there is for something like 15 adult bookstores along a couple hundred miles of road through central PA.
Truckers.
Nah, the road is actually not even an interstate mostly, and there isn't a lot of heavy truck traffic.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2016, 07:13:57 AM
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...
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on June 06, 2016, 04:06:21 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2016, 12:39:54 AM
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.
:huh: 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.
Quote from: dps on June 06, 2016, 12:54:11 PM
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.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 05, 2016, 11:55:41 PM
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.
QuoteThis 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.
QuoteThe 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.
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.
Maybe the difference in mentality comes from the aristocratic vs pioneer past.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 06, 2016, 07:17:22 PM
Maybe the difference in mentality comes from the aristocratic vs pioneer past.
Medieval guilds and regulation of private life. :nerd:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 06, 2016, 07:17:22 PM
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.)
Fun fact: Houston has no zoning laws.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2016, 10:58:02 PM
Fun fact: Houston has no zoning laws.
Is that a problem?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2016, 10:58:02 PM
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. :smarty:)
I thought most HOAs could foreclose.
Also, HOAs are notorious for mismanaging their funds. You can see the inherent danger there. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 06, 2016, 07:17:22 PM
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 06, 2016, 06:50:31 PM
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?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 06, 2016, 06:50:31 PM
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.
Seriously? You should be able to turn your house in a residential street into a 24 hour nightclub with no noise insulation? If I can no longer live next doo to you and my property's market value is destroyed, you are damaging my "stuff" way more than if you threw a stone at my window.
These are the sort of houses that people are not allowed to paint pink :
http://www.aboutbritain.com/images/towns/big/brighton-regency-terraced-houses-138810260.jpg
I could probably get away with painting my house pink (largeish, Northern, Edwardian Terrace of no particular distinction), meanwhile in parts of rural Suffolk it is more or less compulsory to have a pink house :D
Also this:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/14/candy-stripe-house-redesign-makes-kensington-neighbours-see-red
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/striped-house-owner-reveals-sevenfigure-sum-spent-on-planning-and-legal-fees-a3238211.html
Again, while our attitudes might differ, the US is very far from being a country of unrestrained land-use, and is probably much more similar to the UK, if not more restrictive (again, especially with regulating sex-oriented businesses), in how things actually play out on a daily basis. As against any grandiose mythologies about our respective "national characters" and the way they impact our land-use laws.
Quote from: Gups on June 07, 2016, 02:01:14 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 06, 2016, 06:50:31 PM
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.
Seriously? You should be able to turn your house in a residential street into a 24 hour nightclub with no noise insulation? If I can no longer live next doo to you and my property's market value is destroyed, you are damaging my "stuff" way more than if you threw a stone at my window.
I remember back in the 90s, before Barcelona had comprehensive noise control requirements fot businesses, neighbors were reduced to downright heckling noisy nightclubs. Stuff got pretty hostile, quite often.
Economists to the rescue: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2809807
QuoteThe 'secondary effects' legal doctrine allows municipalities to zone, or otherwise regulate, sexually oriented businesses. Negative 'secondary effects' (economic externalities) justify limiting First Amendment protection of speech conducted inside strip clubs. One example of a secondary effect, cited in no fewer than four United States Supreme Court rulings, is the negative effect of strip clubs on the quality of the surrounding neighborhood. Little empirical evidence that strip clubs do, in fact, have a negative effect on the surrounding neighborhood exists. To the extent that changes in neighborhood quality are reflected by changes in property prices, property prices should decrease when a strip club opens up nearby. We estimate an augmented repeat sales regression model of housing prices to estimate the effect of strip clubs on nearby residential property prices. Using real estate transactions from King County, Washington, we test the hypothesis that strip clubs have a negative effect on surrounding residential property prices. We exploit the unique and unexpected termination of a 17 year moratorium on new strip club openings in order to generate exogenous variation in the operation of strip clubs. We find no statistical evidence that strip clubs have 'secondary effects' on nearby residential property prices.
Quote from: Martinus on June 05, 2016, 12:44:36 PM
In other news: http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/ztvdg82
England, the nation of kind and sensitive persons. :lol:
Deus Vult! Let's sack Istanbul.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 02, 2016, 02:43:33 PM
Economists to the rescue: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2809807
QuoteThe 'secondary effects' legal doctrine allows municipalities to zone, or otherwise regulate, sexually oriented businesses. Negative 'secondary effects' (economic externalities) justify limiting First Amendment protection of speech conducted inside strip clubs. One example of a secondary effect, cited in no fewer than four United States Supreme Court rulings, is the negative effect of strip clubs on the quality of the surrounding neighborhood. Little empirical evidence that strip clubs do, in fact, have a negative effect on the surrounding neighborhood exists. To the extent that changes in neighborhood quality are reflected by changes in property prices, property prices should decrease when a strip club opens up nearby. We estimate an augmented repeat sales regression model of housing prices to estimate the effect of strip clubs on nearby residential property prices. Using real estate transactions from King County, Washington, we test the hypothesis that strip clubs have a negative effect on surrounding residential property prices. We exploit the unique and unexpected termination of a 17 year moratorium on new strip club openings in order to generate exogenous variation in the operation of strip clubs. We find no statistical evidence that strip clubs have 'secondary effects' on nearby residential property prices.
My gut feelings based NIMBYism trumps your economic augmented repeat sales thingummy whatchamacallit. :P
This seems to be a convenient time to point out that "trump" means fart (both as a noun and verb) in certain parts of England. It is a bit old-fashioned now, but I certainly wouldn't use the word in Yorkshire without bearing that meaning in mind.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 02, 2016, 04:48:50 PM
This seems to be a convenient time to point out that "trump" means fart (both as a noun and verb) in certain parts of England. It is a bit old-fashioned now, but I certainly wouldn't use the word in Yorkshire without bearing that meaning in mind.
That meaning may be making something of a comeback, in essence if not literally. :hmm: