Seems to me that once upon a time organized crime had a major stake in the strip club industry. I believe that organized crime today is less well organized, more fragmented and therefore perhaps less powerful than used to be the case. But are they still involved with the strip club industry in a major way? Yoda elsewhere says that they aren't in Providence, which I find hard to believe, given that town's history. But how about Mass., NJ, NY, Philly, south Florida? Does anyone know? I'm not trying to be a smart ass or to start an argument because I honestly don't know, which is why I'm asking. I've always assumed that most of the fancy GCs get their financing from and are run by one organized crime group or another but that a lot of smaller clubs are independent. Is that incorrect? Does anyone know?
F, I felt the same about government aspirants when Ronald Reagan was first running for President. He said he favored lowering the powers of government, but he wanted to be theman in charge of that very thing. It seemed like a contradiction in some way or other ...
Bookguy, I share your dislike of both political parties. They both say one thing and do another. Republicans say they favor less government and less spending but do the opposite. Democrats claim to represent the weak and downtrodden in our society but oppose most things that would actually help such people. The problem as I see it is that both parties are composed of two separate groups of people - the haves and the have nots. Both parties give lip service to the have-nots in their midst but favor the well-to-do among their ranks. And both parties try to impose limits on our freedoms, they just focus on different areas. So who's a libertarian who favors less government supposed to vote for?
I think this is the fatal flaw of democracy. People who run for office do so because they believe in government. They believe that government is the answer to all problems. People who don't agree don't get involved in politics, because they don't believe in it. So there's a bias in both parties that favors more government. So no matter which party is in power we get higher spending, higher taxes, and less freedom. I wonder where it will all end up?
Point to Memphians -- Danny also has a club in Jackson, MS ("Danny's" gee what a surprise) and Jackson is undergoing a MAJOR crackdown on ALL forms of "perceived crime" including strip-clubs. A lunatic Mayor, that's all. The pendulum will swing the other way some other day.
Point to discussion in general -- I used to be able to purdy much guarantee extra-curricular activities in any of a large number of American cities by hooking in to the "vice scene" through the PORTAL of strip clubs. Not that prostitution literally took place AT the club, nor that the strippers were all hookers too. But I could FIND OUT where to go to get the weasel greased, and could demonstrate myself to be a not-a-cop but instead a regular-guy-who-will-pay-for-play. I don't find that to be the case any more.
Part of it, I think, is the internet. The "network" of connections is more computer oriented; there's TUSCL and Big Doggie and YMMV etc. It's not geographically based any more. So the Mob can't keep hold of the strings that prevent access to desired cash services as efficiently. Just a thought, don't know if it's true.
Finally, about the whole libertarian thing. I think I'm "technically" pretty much a libertarian as well (I hate the whole "George W Bush puts his religion in my bedroom and tells me whom I am allowed to fuck" thing, for example) but have generally voted LEFT-wing because of that. I'm surprised at the points about how Democrats, in general, were perceived as pro-restrictions. My experience is, that the Religious Right is all about restricting my choice while the wishy-washy luvvy-duvvy mostly-incompetent Howard-Deanies were all about live-and-let-live. (I'm putting it in silly terms on purpose, I'm sure you recognize.)
Maybe part of it is local experience -- here in the Deep South, the local-jurisdiction Right politicians are the restrictive ones, convinced that their brand of "Kerstian" (Christian) Protestant Fundamentalism is best when imposed on all and sundry. Whereas there in California, or the Northeast, it's the Left politicians in the local jurisdictions who are all about restriction -- politically correct appointments and affirmative action that restrict choice to a certain ethnic group; environmentalist paranoia creating impossible business restrictions; etc. If it weren't for the damn Christianity and the lack of "lifestyle" choice, I'd be quite happy with the Republican Party.
I'd say, in the long run, I'm the opposite of a "social conservative." Does that make me a Democrat, or a Republican, or a Libertarian, or an Authoritarian?
And isn't it the current administration that's trying to censor pornography and related things like internet sexual discussions (such as THIS VERY SITE) more than at any other time since the 1950s? I dunno why people who like TUSCL would also like the Patriot Act ... or RICO, for that matter.
I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once.
Yoda, this is really funny. It never occurred to me when I wrote that description of the kind of place I'd have, but that descrition fits exactly my all-time-favorite club - Teasers in Key West. It's closed now, I wonder if it's for sale? (Actually they moved downtown and I haven't been to the new location.)
A funny story about Teasers. As I'm sure you know, Key West is heavily gay. So many of the dancers are probably lesbians (Lopaw take note!) About a half mile away there's a public bar/pool/deck out over the ocean at a mostly gay motel, and the whole thing is clothing optional. Which means that if you stop for a drink you're surrounded by naked people. And a couple times I saw one of Teasers' dancers there, naked of course. So I didn't even have to go to Teasers to see their dancers in the nude. What's even funnier is, every time I saw this girl (I also saw her topless on the beach a couple times) she was with another girl who was exactly my type - small and super cute with a perfect body. I kept hoping to run into her at Teasers for one of their naked laps in a private room but never did. Pity. She would have cost me a bundle.
Depending on who the criminals are (the local government zoning board, etc) some might say that no buisness can open without dealing with organized crime. If the local OC is into trash collection or the construction unions all buisnesses deal with them. As Chitown said however the ones that really pique the interest of OC are the ones that are primarily cash where very few records are kept because you can charge a lot without having to account for inventory. Thus explaining where large piles of cash with seemingly no expenses come from becomes much easier.
FONDL: Lol, that would pretty much be my business model if I where ever crazy enough to try and open a SC.
I don't know what kind of a foothold OC has in Philly, it's been greatly reduced in Boston and Providence over the last couple of decades. Still, there have always been rumors of who is behind the club ownership in the area, especially at the Centerfolds clubs. What I have decided is I don't really care. I know about about OC as some of my relatives where friendly with a lot of Mob guys who are now in prison for the rest of their lives. OC, if they are involved, is always behind the scenes in these places. The business is run as a business and customers are not really effected by ownership. As I've said before, there is no lack of stupidity among SC owners and managers-OC or not.
Radi, I don't think it would be a problem in most areas if you kept it small. But if you tried to open a big fancy GC in a city like Philly, I'd expect a visit from some local wiseguys. The only time I've ever considered opening my own place is in my fantasies. But if I was going to do it, It would be a small local bar type place in an inexpensive resort town with low prices, tip out only from the girls, private dances in a small back room and I'd let dancers keep all their LD money. I'd make my bucks from bar sales. And hope for some fringe benefits.
The important question is whether a non-criminal can open a strip club and not be bothered by criminals. If so, then market economy should be present and the clubs should be managed optimally. Given that you spent so much time in these clubs, have you thought about opening one?
I don't personally know of any clubs owned and run by a crime organization. Many if not most of the club owners I know about are in organized crime or closely connected to it.
Shadowcat, do you know where he gets the financing, I think that's the key question.
I know the owner of the two clubs where my ATF used to work. Both places are gold mines and are independently owned. The first is a little hole-in-the-wall nude no alcohol LD factory in southern MD. It's the only club in the area. The place is run by the owner, a woman who tends bar and runs the dancers, and a young gal who collects the entrance fees ($14). There are no paid employees, the dancers tip out the latter two, plus each dancer has to sell 5 drinks a shift or pay for them herself (at about $5 each.) So figure he gets maybe 500 customers a week (people are wandering in and out all day long, late evenings and weekends are pretty busy) and has maybe 30 dancers each averaging 4 shifts a week, he's taking in $10,000 a week with almost no expenses (I believe he owns the building, part of which is rented out to a take-out Chinese place.) Not bad. Although it used to be a lot more popular before he lost his most attractive dancers and raised prices. Rumor has it that some of the girls get lockers in the dressing room and some don't, depending on how friendly they are with the owner.
The other place is the only club in northern VA and is probably the most popular club in the DC area, it's always packed. In addition to being a pasties strip club it's a full service restaurant and sells wine and beer. Almost everyone eats there, so he's not only making money off the drinks but the food too. One of the reasons it's always packed is because prices are very moderate. Also the dancers are quite attractive. No entrance fees, no private dances. They collect a lot of tips on stage, then do a tip walk, then sit with customers who tip them for their time. It's owned by a young guy and a couple buddies who also own a big popular sports pub a block away. They all party with the dancers fairly regularly, so they not only make a lot of money, there are a lot of fringe benefits.
My most recent club was a big glitzy gentlemen's club with probably the most elegant (and expensive) physical layout I've ever seen in a club. No my kind of place but I checked it out a couple times out of curiousity and met a girl who was the best dancer I've ever seen. So naturally I started going regularly. I'd be shocked if this place doesn't have ties to some sort of crime organization. They've invested far more in the place than economics could possibly warrant. No bank would ever finance such an albatross. I'm sure it makes money but the ROI must be terrible.
Years ago many of the clubs were used by organized crime mainly as a method to launder money. I think that today most of them are out of that business. With many of the idiots that seem to run the clubs today, I would believe that if they were run by the 'mob' they would be run better, get less crap from the local authorities and be a more fun place for us all. I don't see any mob run club having to deal with a local pasties ordinance lol
As a fellow libertarian (actually I consider myself to be a pragmatist with strong libertarian leanings, meaning that I believe in doing what has proven to work efficiently with a bias toward protecting individual freedoms, which means I'm opposed to big government) I agree with AN. The people attacking the Patriot Act are mostly liberals, which is funny because they have been the leaders in reducing individual freedoms for 70 years. It's not the Patriot Act they're opposed to, it's the president and the Republican party. The Patriot Act is just a convenient vehicle. But I agree that big government is just as bad as big organized crime. So is a lot of big business. Power corrupts. If you want to lessen corruption you have to decentralize power. What I want to know is whatever happened to the Republican party that, like me, favored states rights and a smaller less-powerful federal government? Who do I vote for now?
Casualguy, the strong libertarian streak in me agrees with a lot of what you say, except for the bit about the patriot act. All the patriot act did was extend powers the government has had for about 30 years (The RICO act) for criminal investigations to espionage/terrorism investigations. You lost all those rights you decry losing 30 years ago and I'm getting tired of people who hear "Patriot Act" acting as if this is some new totalitarian trend and that they are somehow informed civil libertarians. The government has had all these same powers for decades, and used them very extensively. I don't remember the ACLU screaming about the powers in the RICO act when they were being used to stop abortion protesters, but then apparently they are a greater danger to our republic than al Quaida members plotting terrorism inside our country.
The part that really pisses me off is that I was telling friends that the RICO act powers were a threat to our republic and were being misused back in the early '90's and nobody seemed at all concerned, now they act like they're telling me something new and scary about the government's powers.
I'm wondering what is the difference between organized crime and our government system? We are forced to pay money to our government. They give us something back but so do strip clubs. The leader of our nation or leader of our government depends on how much money and organized connections of powerful people they have. Your average Joe without money or powerful connections is not going to get elected. We now have the Patriot Act so that our government can now treat us like we are all potential criminals and monitor everything. Strip club owners seem like small fry compared to what goes on with our government system.
It doesn't bother me to think of dancers working for criminals since I feel like we are all working for a similiar system. Our government system even has payoffs for groups that help them get in power. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of similarities. I once thought that maybe Clinton appeared to run things well as president because he might have had some secret underground mafia connections and already knew how the system worked. I guess he did have a secret intern connection. :)
If you are going to launder money, the more money the club makes the more you can launder without drawing suspicion.
I won't argue that OC may very well be involved in the ownership of some strip clubs. I question weather they have any actual say, or interest, in running any. Either way, IMHO, most strip clubs are run by blithering idiots-no matter who owns them.
I agree with FONDL--the fact that a club seems to be losing money on what is (ostensibly, at least) its principle business, yet continues as a ongoing operation is, perhaps paradoxically, good evidence of ties to organized crime ties...because it is being run for some priniciple other than the profit motive.
I tend to agree with Yoda in general but I think there are some exceptions. Probably all clubs try to make money, but I dont think they all try to maximize their club income. There may be other benefits that accrue for which they're willing to forgo some profit. For example, maybe some clubs are run so they and their friends have a nice place to hang out, or maybe to provide employment for junior members, or maybe to recruit escorts, or maybe to launder money. I've been in clubs where the whole purpose of the pricing seemed to be to keep out the riff-raff, where lower prices would have easily generated more profit. I've eaten in several mob-owned restaurants where they intentionally kept prices ridiculously low. Clearly profit was not the primary motive. Maybe some strip clubs are run the same way. It would at least appear so.
Clubs tend to be run like the mob runs a vice racket. I agree with FONDL that they're losing business because the vice racket model no longer works as well as a focus on customer service now that their competition includes a lot of other outlets for commercial sex and adult entertainment.
OC is ALL about making money not losing it. If they where running the clubs the clubs would be making money.
Clubs are run poorly because they are run by morons most of the time. Club owners have always operated on the theory that both customers and dancers are infinitely replaceable. They are finding out over the last few years that it not always the case. That being said, strip clubs are set up so that it's very difficult to lose money. Cover charges and house fees generally pay the overhead and almost every employee earns based on tips. Liquor sales have always been the club owners primary source of revenue and the profit margin on liquor is extremely high.
OC is ALL about making money not losing it. If they where running the clubs the clubs would be making money.
Clubs are run poorly because they are run by morons most of the time. Club owners have always operated on the theory that both customers and dancers are infinitely replaceable. They are finding out over the last few years that it not always the case. That being said, strip clubs are set up so that it's very difficult to lose money. Cover charges and house fees generally pay the overhead and almost every employee earns based on tips. Liquor sales have always been the club owners primary source of revenue and the profit margin on liquor is extremely high.
FONDL: It's not a theory, just an observation of a fact. Hats off to Philly for not illustrating it, which I assume is what you meant to say. Atlantic City clubs would be an example, woudn't they? Although I suppose you could say crime there is controlled by the Philly mob.
AN, I agree with the ovservation that cities often worked better when they were run by crooks. I think a major reason why many of the larger cities in the Northeast have declined is because the crooks have declined in influence. Now nobody has any power and so they can't ever accomplish anything, eg. no city today could ever build a Central Park.
One of the things that makes me wonder about the extent of organized crime's involvement in the industry is the number of clubs that seem to be run in a way where they don't care whether they make money or not. I can't think of another industry that seems to care less what their customers want. Plus the continued growth in high-end clubs that nobody seems to especially like. I find that all very puzzling. The only explanation I can think of is that many clubs are run for some other reason than to make money.
It's curious that towns known for having a vibrant, influential organized crime presence often don't have good strip clubs like you would expect. I'm looking at you, Chicago.
I remember Joan Rivers once commented that she prefered it when the mob ran Vegas. In an odd way they were more upfront and trustworthy than the buisnessmen and lawyers who run it now (no offense Chitown). I can see the point. If honor and a handshake are the foundation of your buisness, and if you are likely to be killed for getting caught cheating on a deal, that is a good incentive to be up front and honest in your buisness dealings. Unfortunately the mob is also overpopulated with violent sociopaths who don't seem to feel any sense of obligation to treat the general population the way they treat each other, so that has to be a mitigating factor.
First of all what's the diff? I know of at least one club in Mass that has OC ties and a few in Providence but it's not like Tony Soprano and Silvio Dante are sitting in the back room getting blow jobs from all of the dancers. Most of the time we are talking seed money or money laundering. The fact is, clubs probably pay a lot more in the way of bribes to government officials than they do to any OC family. In it's heyday, OC "families" had a hand in everything from strip clubs to illegal gambling to trash collection. OC's heyday in the Boston/Providence area has long passed. I can't speak for other parts of the country.
Good one, Chitown. Half the club owners I've seen look like extras in a Scorsese movie. The guy from your backyard behind some Wahington Park clubs (initials R.R.), looks and talks like a cross between Benicio del Toro and 80s Philadelphia mafia boss Nicky Scarfo. He even calls all his customers Chief.
The Mob is definitely big into clubs. The strip club business has all the attributes that make an organization attractive to the Mob: a business that runs largely on cash; regulations (liquor licenses) that limit competition, but are subjective, and therefore can be bought from small-time local politicians; tie-ins to ancillary businesses (prositution, drugs, gambling, loan-sharking); a clientele that, by and large, has an interest in not making waves that could hurt the club (due to adverse personal publicity), and a vulnerable and easily controlled workforce. I'm practically channeling DeNiro and Pesci just thinking about it.
33 comments
Latest
I've no idea if the link is for real or not, but it's relevant, I guess.
I think this is the fatal flaw of democracy. People who run for office do so because they believe in government. They believe that government is the answer to all problems. People who don't agree don't get involved in politics, because they don't believe in it. So there's a bias in both parties that favors more government. So no matter which party is in power we get higher spending, higher taxes, and less freedom. I wonder where it will all end up?
Point to discussion in general -- I used to be able to purdy much guarantee extra-curricular activities in any of a large number of American cities by hooking in to the "vice scene" through the PORTAL of strip clubs. Not that prostitution literally took place AT the club, nor that the strippers were all hookers too. But I could FIND OUT where to go to get the weasel greased, and could demonstrate myself to be a not-a-cop but instead a regular-guy-who-will-pay-for-play. I don't find that to be the case any more.
Part of it, I think, is the internet. The "network" of connections is more computer oriented; there's TUSCL and Big Doggie and YMMV etc. It's not geographically based any more. So the Mob can't keep hold of the strings that prevent access to desired cash services as efficiently. Just a thought, don't know if it's true.
Finally, about the whole libertarian thing. I think I'm "technically" pretty much a libertarian as well (I hate the whole "George W Bush puts his religion in my bedroom and tells me whom I am allowed to fuck" thing, for example) but have generally voted LEFT-wing because of that. I'm surprised at the points about how Democrats, in general, were perceived as pro-restrictions. My experience is, that the Religious Right is all about restricting my choice while the wishy-washy luvvy-duvvy mostly-incompetent Howard-Deanies were all about live-and-let-live. (I'm putting it in silly terms on purpose, I'm sure you recognize.)
Maybe part of it is local experience -- here in the Deep South, the local-jurisdiction Right politicians are the restrictive ones, convinced that their brand of "Kerstian" (Christian) Protestant Fundamentalism is best when imposed on all and sundry. Whereas there in California, or the Northeast, it's the Left politicians in the local jurisdictions who are all about restriction -- politically correct appointments and affirmative action that restrict choice to a certain ethnic group; environmentalist paranoia creating impossible business restrictions; etc. If it weren't for the damn Christianity and the lack of "lifestyle" choice, I'd be quite happy with the Republican Party.
I'd say, in the long run, I'm the opposite of a "social conservative." Does that make me a Democrat, or a Republican, or a Libertarian, or an Authoritarian?
And isn't it the current administration that's trying to censor pornography and related things like internet sexual discussions (such as THIS VERY SITE) more than at any other time since the 1950s? I dunno why people who like TUSCL would also like the Patriot Act ... or RICO, for that matter.
I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once.
A funny story about Teasers. As I'm sure you know, Key West is heavily gay. So many of the dancers are probably lesbians (Lopaw take note!) About a half mile away there's a public bar/pool/deck out over the ocean at a mostly gay motel, and the whole thing is clothing optional. Which means that if you stop for a drink you're surrounded by naked people. And a couple times I saw one of Teasers' dancers there, naked of course. So I didn't even have to go to Teasers to see their dancers in the nude. What's even funnier is, every time I saw this girl (I also saw her topless on the beach a couple times) she was with another girl who was exactly my type - small and super cute with a perfect body. I kept hoping to run into her at Teasers for one of their naked laps in a private room but never did. Pity. She would have cost me a bundle.
I don't know what kind of a foothold OC has in Philly, it's been greatly reduced in Boston and Providence over the last couple of decades. Still, there have always been rumors of who is behind the club ownership in the area, especially at the Centerfolds clubs. What I have decided is I don't really care. I know about about OC as some of my relatives where friendly with a lot of Mob guys who are now in prison for the rest of their lives. OC, if they are involved, is always behind the scenes in these places. The business is run as a business and customers are not really effected by ownership. As I've said before, there is no lack of stupidity among SC owners and managers-OC or not.
The important question is whether a non-criminal can open a strip club and not be bothered by criminals. If so, then market economy should be present and the clubs should be managed optimally. Given that you spent so much time in these clubs, have you thought about opening one?
I know the owner of the two clubs where my ATF used to work. Both places are gold mines and are independently owned. The first is a little hole-in-the-wall nude no alcohol LD factory in southern MD. It's the only club in the area. The place is run by the owner, a woman who tends bar and runs the dancers, and a young gal who collects the entrance fees ($14). There are no paid employees, the dancers tip out the latter two, plus each dancer has to sell 5 drinks a shift or pay for them herself (at about $5 each.) So figure he gets maybe 500 customers a week (people are wandering in and out all day long, late evenings and weekends are pretty busy) and has maybe 30 dancers each averaging 4 shifts a week, he's taking in $10,000 a week with almost no expenses (I believe he owns the building, part of which is rented out to a take-out Chinese place.) Not bad. Although it used to be a lot more popular before he lost his most attractive dancers and raised prices. Rumor has it that some of the girls get lockers in the dressing room and some don't, depending on how friendly they are with the owner.
The other place is the only club in northern VA and is probably the most popular club in the DC area, it's always packed. In addition to being a pasties strip club it's a full service restaurant and sells wine and beer. Almost everyone eats there, so he's not only making money off the drinks but the food too. One of the reasons it's always packed is because prices are very moderate. Also the dancers are quite attractive. No entrance fees, no private dances. They collect a lot of tips on stage, then do a tip walk, then sit with customers who tip them for their time. It's owned by a young guy and a couple buddies who also own a big popular sports pub a block away. They all party with the dancers fairly regularly, so they not only make a lot of money, there are a lot of fringe benefits.
My most recent club was a big glitzy gentlemen's club with probably the most elegant (and expensive) physical layout I've ever seen in a club. No my kind of place but I checked it out a couple times out of curiousity and met a girl who was the best dancer I've ever seen. So naturally I started going regularly. I'd be shocked if this place doesn't have ties to some sort of crime organization. They've invested far more in the place than economics could possibly warrant. No bank would ever finance such an albatross. I'm sure it makes money but the ROI must be terrible.
The part that really pisses me off is that I was telling friends that the RICO act powers were a threat to our republic and were being misused back in the early '90's and nobody seemed at all concerned, now they act like they're telling me something new and scary about the government's powers.
It doesn't bother me to think of dancers working for criminals since I feel like we are all working for a similiar system. Our government system even has payoffs for groups that help them get in power. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of similarities. I once thought that maybe Clinton appeared to run things well as president because he might have had some secret underground mafia connections and already knew how the system worked. I guess he did have a secret intern connection. :)
I won't argue that OC may very well be involved in the ownership of some strip clubs. I question weather they have any actual say, or interest, in running any. Either way, IMHO, most strip clubs are run by blithering idiots-no matter who owns them.
Clubs are run poorly because they are run by morons most of the time. Club owners have always operated on the theory that both customers and dancers are infinitely replaceable. They are finding out over the last few years that it not always the case. That being said, strip clubs are set up so that it's very difficult to lose money. Cover charges and house fees generally pay the overhead and almost every employee earns based on tips. Liquor sales have always been the club owners primary source of revenue and the profit margin on liquor is extremely high.
Clubs are run poorly because they are run by morons most of the time. Club owners have always operated on the theory that both customers and dancers are infinitely replaceable. They are finding out over the last few years that it not always the case. That being said, strip clubs are set up so that it's very difficult to lose money. Cover charges and house fees generally pay the overhead and almost every employee earns based on tips. Liquor sales have always been the club owners primary source of revenue and the profit margin on liquor is extremely high.
AN, I agree with the ovservation that cities often worked better when they were run by crooks. I think a major reason why many of the larger cities in the Northeast have declined is because the crooks have declined in influence. Now nobody has any power and so they can't ever accomplish anything, eg. no city today could ever build a Central Park.
One of the things that makes me wonder about the extent of organized crime's involvement in the industry is the number of clubs that seem to be run in a way where they don't care whether they make money or not. I can't think of another industry that seems to care less what their customers want. Plus the continued growth in high-end clubs that nobody seems to especially like. I find that all very puzzling. The only explanation I can think of is that many clubs are run for some other reason than to make money.
"OK, now take me to jail."