Strip club owners sue City of Milwaukee
The operators of a Milwaukee tavern that features erotic dancing are suing the City of Milwaukee, claiming its method of regulating such entertainment is unconstitutional.
The suit was filed in U.S. District Court by Six Star Holdings LLC and Ferol LLC. Those investment groups are led by Jon Ferraro, who operates Silk, an exotic dance club at 11400 W. Silver Spring Drive, and two similar clubs in Juneau and the Town of Middleton.
Ferraro and his partners this summer proposed two additional Milwaukee clubs featuring scantily clad dancers: Silk East, at 730 N. Old World 3rd St., and Satin, proposed for 117 W. Pittsburgh Ave., in the Walker's Point neighborhood.
The Common Council in September rejected applications for tavern licenses for both Silk East and Satin.
Those votes occurred one day after a pair of public hearings drew dozens of opponents. They said clubs that feature mostly nude dancing would hurt efforts to attract more downtown retailers, as well as more development in Walker's Point. Some said Satin would generate heavy traffic in the area, and opponents to both clubs said they were concerned about the effect on property values.
Ferraro and his attorneys said Satin and Silk East would have adequate security to prevent any problems. They cited Police Department records showing a lack of trouble at Silk and said opponents provided no evidence that the clubs would hurt property values.
The federal suit "is more than just about us making a profit or bringing jobs to the city, although that is certainly part of it," Ferraro said Wednesday, in an e-mail.
"We think that we have a constitutional right to put on this type of entertainment and that the people who do enjoy this type of entertainment have a constitutional right to come and see it, and that is what we are asking the court to rule on," he said.
City Attorney Grant Langley declined to comment, saying he hasn't had a chance to review the suit.
Among other allegations, the suit says the city's regulation of erotic dance is unconstitutional "because it lacks an adequate factual basis on which to base a reasonable belief that any problem actually exists" with taverns that offer such entertainment.
Ferraro and his partners are seeking an unspecified amount of damages tied to a loss of freedom of expression, and a loss of business profits, the suit says.
They're also seeking a judgment that orders the city to grant the tavern licenses to operate Silk East and Satin.
The suit was filed in U.S. District Court by Six Star Holdings LLC and Ferol LLC. Those investment groups are led by Jon Ferraro, who operates Silk, an exotic dance club at 11400 W. Silver Spring Drive, and two similar clubs in Juneau and the Town of Middleton.
Ferraro and his partners this summer proposed two additional Milwaukee clubs featuring scantily clad dancers: Silk East, at 730 N. Old World 3rd St., and Satin, proposed for 117 W. Pittsburgh Ave., in the Walker's Point neighborhood.
The Common Council in September rejected applications for tavern licenses for both Silk East and Satin.
Those votes occurred one day after a pair of public hearings drew dozens of opponents. They said clubs that feature mostly nude dancing would hurt efforts to attract more downtown retailers, as well as more development in Walker's Point. Some said Satin would generate heavy traffic in the area, and opponents to both clubs said they were concerned about the effect on property values.
Ferraro and his attorneys said Satin and Silk East would have adequate security to prevent any problems. They cited Police Department records showing a lack of trouble at Silk and said opponents provided no evidence that the clubs would hurt property values.
The federal suit "is more than just about us making a profit or bringing jobs to the city, although that is certainly part of it," Ferraro said Wednesday, in an e-mail.
"We think that we have a constitutional right to put on this type of entertainment and that the people who do enjoy this type of entertainment have a constitutional right to come and see it, and that is what we are asking the court to rule on," he said.
City Attorney Grant Langley declined to comment, saying he hasn't had a chance to review the suit.
Among other allegations, the suit says the city's regulation of erotic dance is unconstitutional "because it lacks an adequate factual basis on which to base a reasonable belief that any problem actually exists" with taverns that offer such entertainment.
Ferraro and his partners are seeking an unspecified amount of damages tied to a loss of freedom of expression, and a loss of business profits, the suit says.
They're also seeking a judgment that orders the city to grant the tavern licenses to operate Silk East and Satin.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
35 comments
If clubs would locate in "out of the way" places - even in town - they would generate fewer complaints and won't be visible to mom with her kids going to the grocery store. For decades, many clubs have insisted on being located in or near above-average real estate corridors. Obviously, they needed to be seen to attract customers.
Now days with internet capability on my 3G Iphone, I can bring up TUSCL and get directions to more clubs than I can physically see in an area.
Cities should consider zoning that allows adult entertainment in areas that need redevelopment. A well-lit club would bring life to areas that are suited for light industrial and small warehouse/office uses. The kicker might be a one-dollar tax on admission to the club. City councils might actually begin to quietly adjust zoning.
That's an optimistic thought that might be a long time in the making. The media plays up adult entertainment news because it sells papers, then the church folks read about it and are automatically are opposed to any further discussion of such filth...and the fight is on. The issue ends up being decided by people who want to get re-elected...and there are a lot more votes in the church than in the press room or TV station.
Or in the SC for that matter. Look at smokers...a minority that do something that the majority hate. Now look at all the places where you can't smoke. I understand majority rule, but I thought the US constitution was written to help avoid the tyranny of the majority.
Anyhow...live and let live is what I always say.
Let's go beyond the smoking vs your health. What about the person who thinks SC's should go away. Shouldn't we think about the "health" of the neighborhoods, the children who see these places while driving by with their parents on the way to church? What about the health of the employees? Shouldn't we worry about that to.
Be careful what you wish for, you must might get it.
LOL...that line of baloney has been tried over & over again, and it never passes the legal test.
--------------------------------
"Let the free market take care of things."
Like the health of our citizenry?? No thanx there...we've already tried that, and it's failed miserably so far.
"But no, you 'healthy' folks wanted smoking banned EVERYWHERE."
Nope, just in indoor public places tyvm.
"What about the person who thinks SC's should go away."
Who's "health" is being negatively impinged on by strip clubs? Oh yea, it was no one.
<<"It does if the owner of the private property you're on says he wants to allow it, and doesn't lie to you about allowing it.">>
<LOL...that line of baloney has been tried over & over again, and it never passes the legal test.>
Nice context switch, there MG. You start out asking about rights, and when called on it, switch to law. Even you should realize that rights and law are not the same thing.
And even you claim about passing the legal test is true, so what? *Slavery* passed the legal test at one time. And I'll point out that the Supreme Court never reversed itself on that one, it took a Constitutional amendment.
Confiscating your cash because an officer thinks you're carrying too much passes the "legal test".
Arresting people for sucking dick passes the "legal test" in some places.
Passing the "legal test" and respecting rights are not equivalent.
Ummmm, some of our rights are guaranteed under the law. Our human rights come from the fact that we are all humans though.
"And even you claim about passing the legal test is true, so what? *Slavery* passed the legal test at one time. And I'll point out that the Supreme Court never reversed itself on that one, it took a Constitutional amendment."
That's how our system of govt. works my friend. Either you have confidence in the idea that people will get things right in the long-run (and I do) or you don't. People on the Right these days try to idolize the Founders, and yet they got the issue of slavery exactly wrong. Many of the Founders were great men, but they weren't perfect.
"Confiscating your cash because an officer thinks you're carrying too much passes the 'legal test'."
No, it really doesn't.
"Arresting people for sucking dick passes the 'legal test' in some places."
Again, either you believe in the system of laws & govt. that we have in the USA or you don't. I do, and I also think that it's just a matter of time before the USA catches up with much of the rest of the world on this & many other issues.
BTW, you don't have a Constitutional right to smoke. That doesn't mean that smoking should be illegal, it's just a stated fact.
Yes...The health of our citizenry is much better now that the government is taking over even more. I can't wait to see how healty we'll all be if Obamacare takes over...like in Europe where people have to wait for years before they can get a treatment...where experimental treatments are so regulated that individuals have to travel to foreign countries to get treatment...yeah...let's have some of that. Canadians, chime in...how great is your system up there? Can you just go get a treatment that you need or is there a waiting line determined by the government?
Smoking in indoor public places. What defines Public. If an individual owns a place...does it belong to them or the public? I thought public was parks and government buildings...things that are paid for by taxes. I thought that things I own are private. If I open a restaurant, don't I have the right to deny service in some situations? Is anyone allowed to just walk into any establishment? Why can't there be restaurants, clubs, bars, etc. that choose to be smoking establishments where those of us who wish to persue our happiness through the burning of tobacco can go and congregate with others of our kind while also enjoying other aspects of persuing happiness (like a good meal, drinks, and lappers)?
This country was founded on the INDIVIDUALs rights to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. Why does your need for some smoke free places outweigh my need for some free to smoke places?!
We have SC's for people interested in that sort of thing. Why not "public" places for people that are interested in the smoking thing? Why does the ban have to be across the board?
it should definately be up to the business or property owner.
back on topic, i believe christy's cleveland sued the city and won over the pasties rule a few years ago.
Come on now...you are continually making what you know are ridiculous arguments on the face of them. Give us all a break!
"Yes...The health of our citizenry is much better now that the government is taking over even more."
LOL...you're "right"...people are living even shorter lives these days...not...
"I can't wait to see how healty we'll all be if Obamacare takes over...like in Europe where people have to wait for years before they can get a treatment...where experimental treatments are so regulated that individuals have to travel to foreign countries to get treatment"
LOL...more sheer nonsense. I WISH that we were going to be getting a single-payer health care system at the federal level, but we're not. Several states are pretty close to developing their own American versions of such a system though...watch & learn.
BTW, there are people waiting that much time (if not longer) whether they have health insurance or not right now. One of my relatives just waited the better part of 6 months to get a simple hip replacement right here in the good ole USA.
"Canadians, chime in...how great is your system up there? Can you just go get a treatment that you need or is there a waiting line determined by the government?"
LMAO! I've never met a Canadian that would trade their system for ours. No human made system is perfect. There are no "waiting lines determined by the government" in Canada. People wait to get health care just like they do down here in the states, and we have a MUCH larger system than they do.
"Smoking in indoor public places. What defines Public."
A public place is generally an indoor or outdoor area, whether privately or publicly owned, to which the public have access by right or by invitation, expressed or implied, whether by payment of money or not, but NOT a place when used exclusively by one or more individuals for a private gathering or other personal purpose.
The following is just one example of a state law defining public places for smoking laws:
"Public place" means any enclosed indoor area used by the general public or serving as a place of work containing 250 or more square feet of floor space, including, but not limited to, all restaurants with a seating capacity greater than 50, all retail stores, lobbies & malls, offices, including waiting rooms, and other commercial establishments; public conveyances with departures, travel, and destination entirely within this state; educational facilities; hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, and other health care & medical facilities; and auditoriums, elevators, theaters, libraries, art museums, concert halls, indoor arenas, and meeting rooms. "Public place" does NOT include a retail store at which 50% or more of the sales result from the sale of tobacco or tobacco products, the portion of a retail store where tobacco or tobacco products are sold, a private, enclosed office occupied exclusively by smokers even though the office may be visited by non-smokers, a room used primarily as the residence of students or other persons at an educational facility, a sleeping room in a motel or hotel, or each resident's room in a health care facility.
"If an individual owns a place...does it belong to them or the public?"
See above.
"I thought public was parks and government buildings...things that are paid for by taxes"
...and you thought wrong, but what else is new eh??
"If I open a restaurant, don't I have the right to deny service in some situations?"
Sure, but those situations are very, very limited...unless maybe your name is Rand Paul...lol...
"Is anyone allowed to just walk into any establishment?"
Yes, whether they say there or not is another story though.
"Why does your need for some smoke free places outweigh my need for some free to smoke places?!"
Because the greater public good overrides your perceived "needs", period.
"Some people feel that naked women dancing for patrons is unhealthy for all involved"
...and those people (and you know this full well) are WRONG.
"By your thinking, we should remove exotic dancing from all bars since a majority of people think it is unhealthy."
Who ever said that "a majority of people think it is unhealthy"?? That's a strawman argument...give it up...
"Why does the ban have to be across the board?"
We've already been over that at length.
-------------------------
"it should definately be up to the business or property owner"
...again, if your name happens to be Rand Paul that is...lol...
------------------------
"One thing that has always amused me about the smokers who insist upon smoking anywhere they want, oblivious to the non-smokers wish to have clean air, is that many smokers will not smoke in their homes or in their enclosed cars, rather they go outside or keep the car windows down to avoid the smoke."
Exactly...see? Even a Right-wing winger like "txtittyfan" can get it...why can't the rest of you??
This is the thinking that the Constitution is supposed to protect us from. EACH of us is endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights.
The greater public good is a dangerous thing to envoke on any topic... Someone out there might come into power thinking that ridding us of SCs would be for the greater public good. Banning alcohol might be for the greater public good. Limiting who can have children may be for the greater public good. Deciding who should live or die might be necessary for the greater public good.
The difference between you and me is that I think the best thing for the greater public good is individual freedom and responsibility. You seem to think best thing for the greater public good is what you determine it to be.
There's no "creator" mention in the U.S. Constitution, period end of story.
"The greater public good is a dangerous thing to envoke on any topic... Someone out there might come into power thinking that ridding us of SCs would be for the greater public good"
...and they'd be wrong. Look, for last time, smoking (either first-hand or second-hand smoke) causes cancer. Let me say that again...the overwhelming body of medical & scientific evidence says that smoking *causes cancer*. When there's an overwhelming body of evidence that clearly states that going to a strip club
causes cancer, then maybe we'll talk. Until...with all due respect...you're full baloney...
"Banning alcohol might be for the greater public good"
...except that we've already tried that (via amending the Constitution even!) & it didn't work.
"Limiting who can have children may be for the greater public good."
Says who??
"Deciding who should live or die might be necessary for the greater public good."
Again, says who??
"The difference between you and me is that I think the best thing for the greater public good is individual freedom and responsibility."
No, the difference between you & me is that I have some common sense & a great deal of knowledge about scientific FACTS. Now go read a book & review some more strip clubs while you're at...ugh...
As for your common sense. You are assuming that you are part of that majority that knows what is best...how fucking arrogant?! The beauty of America is that we are allowed to do things that are bad for us (fast food, alcohol, unprotected sex with numerous anonymous partners...etc). I get that I shouldn't be able to come into your home and expose you to my smoke. I get that there are other places where I should not expose you to my smoke. But why can't you allow that there could be places where I and other smokers could get together and smoke all we want while enjoying other activities. Should we be relegated to only smoking on our own property? Should smoking be banned comepletely (because it is bad for us)?...following that, should everything that is bad for us be banned? Should the government come in a control every part of our lives in order to make sure that everyone lives a certain way for the greater good? This too has been tried in many countries...and those systems failed.
I'm sure you are intelligent and well read and you are an excellent and prolific strip club reviewer. That still doesn't make you better than me or anyone else. You sound like one of those elites who think they know what's best for everyone. Just stop and consider what would happen if someone who didn't have your views was put in charge of how your life should be run.
Again, I get that smoking is a slightly different topic because we all know that my smoking could cause others health problems. I'm not saying that I should be allowed to smoke everywhere and anytime I want. But I would think that in a free country I should be able to go out and join others who like to smoke for public activities. The same way I don't think every bar should have to have exotic dancers, but there should be allowed some places that have them for those that enjoy it.
Anyone else want to tell me if I'm way off base?
If smokers want a place to congregate for eating and drinking, our system allows for that. It is called a private club.
It seems most people I know that smoke, want to quit but can't.
And I may be addicted but I also actually enjoy tobacco. Cigars, cigarettes even the occasional dip.
As for polluting "Your" air (I thought it belonged to all of us), be careful, the smog clouds over big cities aren't produced by tobacco smoke. Next thing you know some group of right thinking people will demand that we all switch over to green cars or public transportation only, because of the pollution and how it affects those who don't drive. Again, the "for the public good" argument scares me because some folks might try to use it to take away more liberties from us.
As for the big hats. You act as though I'm asking to smoke a sporting event...that's not what I said or am saying. I'm only asking that smokers be allowed to get together in places like restaurants, bars, whatever where the owner decides that smoking is allowed.
Why can't we have some places that allow smoking for folks like me and other places that are non smoking for those of you who don't want to be exposed to it. Again, the way we have extablishments that have exotic dancing and those that don't. Why must you make non-smoking across the entire board?
Again, can anyone help me out on this?
PRIMO,
CONGRATULATIONS ON MISSING MY POINTS. OHIO LAW DOES ALLOW FOR SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES AS LONG AS CERTAIN CRITERIA ARE MET. THE SAME GOES FOR PRIVATE CLUBS.
COMPARING EXOTIC DANCING TO SMOKING IS AN UTTERLY RIDICULUS ARGUEMENT. SMOKING IS HARMFUL AND DEADLY. WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND. PUBLIC POLICY IS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, IT IS NOT PERFECT, BUT FEW GOVT ENDEAVORS ARE.
IF SMOKERS ARE SO UPSET OVER THE PERCEIVED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THEM THEY ARE MORE THAN ABLE TO LEGISLATE CHANGE. THAT MAY BE DIFFICULT THOUGH BECAUSE THEY ARE A MINORITY.
IF SMOKERS WANT A PLACE TO SMOKE IN PUBLIC, THEY CAN OPEN AN ESTABLISHMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR LOCAL LAWS. OR IF THEY DO NOT LIKE THEIR LOCAL LAWS THEY ARE FREE TO MOVE.
http://www.odh.ohio.gov/alerts/ohiosmoki…
From the FAQ...
Are any places exempt from the ban?
Under certain conditions, private residences; family-owned businesses without non-family employees; certain areas of nursing homes; outdoor patios; and some retail tobacco stores are exempt.
You're right...I can go to a family owned bar that only has family members working there to have a beer with pals.
Then again...
Prohibit smoking in any “public place†or “place of employment." For definitions of a “public place†and “place of employment,†please follow this link to ORC 3794.01 Definitions.ORC 3794.01 Definitions ((B) “Public place†means an enclosed area to which the public is invited or in which the public is permitted
and that is not a private residence.)
You are right...I feel so free now. Thank god I live in a nation where majority rules, right? Again, beware...I'm sure some groups could get the majority together to say...ban SCs. That must make it right. If the community as a majority doesn't want them, then I guess it's ok to get rid of them and those who liked the SCs can feel free to MOVE.
Again and again...majority rule and for the public good can be used to justify many evils. If you use those arguments for banning smoking, don't be suprised if someone else comes along to use them to ban something you might enjoy. That is my point.
I don't really even care about smoking in public, as long as I can step outside and light up when I want to. It's the other situations where someone might want to impose their morals or whatever on me that I worry about. Some of my examples might be rediculous but consider the genocide around the world where the MAJORITY has decided that the MINORITY shouldn't be allowed to live "for the greater good". Extreme example...maybe...but true.
If smokers are so outraged at losing their personal freedoms, why don't they petition for legislation to change the local laws regarding private clubs? I am sure that the tobacco industry and enough of the public would support it.
After all, we are a democracy. Stop bitching and make a change.
PrimO, your above comment states that one of the best things for the greater public good is individual responsibility.
Do you really think it is responsible to publically expose non smokers against their will to the harmful effects of your public activity?
george: You are not entirely innocent here.
As for me - YAWN!!
You obviously don't understand how real science works. We're not talking about global warming (of which I'm not a fan of), alcohol (for which prohibition has already been tried & failed), overpopulation (for which there is much hype/smoke but little fire), and resource allocation. We're talking about smoking bans, and YOU'RE the one that brought it up in the first place!
"You are assuming that you are part of that majority that knows what is best"
No, I am basing my opinions on FACTS, not blind ideology.
"The beauty of America is that we are allowed to do things that are bad for us (fast food, alcohol, unprotected sex with numerous anonymous partners...etc)"
...not when it affects people beyond yourself you don't. You can't drink & drive or willfully spread dangerous communicable diseases legally.
"I get that I shouldn't be able to come into your home and expose you to my smoke."
That's not the issue at all.
"I get that there are other places where I should not expose you to my smoke"
...like in public places, according the laws of the land.
"But why can't you allow that there could be places where I and other smokers could get together and smoke all we want while enjoying other activities"
...which *are* allowed under the law in many states.
"Should we be relegated to only smoking on our own property? Should smoking be banned comepletely (because it is bad for us)?"
Nope, and NO ONE is advocating for that, period.
"Should the government come in a control every part of our lives in order to make sure that everyone lives a certain way for the greater good?"
Nope, and again, that's NOT what is at issue here, period.
"That still doesn't make you better than me or anyone else."
It's just makes YOU part of the lot that we are pulling along on this site, when you could easily get out & push right along with the rest of us.
"Its just that I don't understand who anyone from this site/group would want to uphold any idea that one group should be able to tell another group how to live."
Either you believe in the rule of law or you don't. It's pretty simple.
"One day it might be Smoking Bans...next time it might be food that is bad for you (oh oh...already happening in places"
...no, it really isn't.
"Let's not get the moralists telling us all what sinners we are for wanting to ogle beautiful scantily clad women in exchange for cash rewards and then shutting down SCs."
I agree, but again...that's NOT what the issue is here. I don't base my opinions on ANY religious beliefs, and I won't stand for anyone else forcing their religious beliefs on others.
"I'm not saying that I should be allowed to smoke everywhere and anytime I want"
...and NO ONE is saying that you can never smoke again, period.
"In Ohio the law does not allow for smoking in private clubs"
...then take that up with the state of OH, but realize that the "private club" angle has been fully explored elsewhere & found to have NO legal merit whatsoever. If you want to smoke indoors, then find a cigar club or the like & quit whining.
"There is nowhere outside our own homes and vehicles where we can really smoke without someone giving us a hard time."
Well, I think that outdoor smoking bans (and I've seen them try to be implemented in a few locations) are totally wrong. If people want to smoke in an unenclosed area outside (like not underneath a tent), then have at it. You're only hurting yourself then.
"As for polluting 'Your' air (I thought it belonged to all of us"
EXACTLY, which is why the greater public good comes into play. The air in public places should be clean for ALL to use freely.
"Next thing you know some group of right thinking people will demand that we all switch over to green cars or public transportation only, because of the pollution and how it affects those who don't drive."
Look, we are either going to move more towards mass transit or greener transportation, or sometime over the next century things are going to come to a crushing halt when we run out of oil. There's really no way around that FACT, and, once again, that's NOT the issue that's in play here. Quit trying to change the subject!
"I'm only asking that smokers be allowed to get together in places like restaurants, bars, whatever where the owner decides that smoking is allowed"
...and, if those places are open to the public, then those places are going to be smoke-free eventually.
"Why must you make non-smoking across the entire board?"
Because smoking CAUSES CANCER!
"Thank god I live in a nation where majority rules, right?"
Yes, thank goodness indeed that we live in a strong democracy!
"I'm sure some groups could get the majority together to say...ban SCs. That must make it right"
...not if it's not based on rational thought it doesn't. More people need to keep their own religious-based morals to themselves IMHO.
"I don't really even care about smoking in public, as long as I can step outside and light up when I want to."
Well, then you've wasted everyone's time here by bring the subject up in the first place...ugh...
"consider the genocide around the world where the MAJORITY has decided that the MINORITY shouldn't be allowed to live 'for the greater good'."
NO ONE is out to kill all the smokers...get real!
------------------------------
"*This* is why I'd like a thread ignore capability"
There is one! It's called not reading the thread!
-----------------------------
"How did a thread about zoning approval for SCs in Milwaukee get twisted into this mess?"
Because "Prim0" decided to open his big mouth and say this nonsense:
"Or in the SC for that matter. Look at smokers...a minority that do something that the majority hate. Now look at all the places where you can't smoke. I understand majority rule, but I thought the US constitution was written to help avoid the tyranny of the majority."
Next time...think before you type...
-----------------------
"I let the troll suck me in."
LMAO! If I'm a "troll", then you're John Holmes gmd...LOL!
MG...I've had fun debating this with you. I hope you've had fun too.