From a press release:
Date: March 12, 2009
Released by: Alma Brown, Communications Manager, 494-8554
Subject: ELLIOTT’S BBW, Inc.The City of Peoria has filed an action for Declaratory Judgment against Elliott’s BBW, Inc. The Complaint seeks a Declaratory Judgment from the Court that the use of the premises at 7805 North University for a dressing room to serve the adult business at 7807 N. University is not permitted.
The City has filed this action in the interest of reaching a quick and economical resolution of this issue. The City intends to try the case in Court and not the press. A copy of the Complaint is available by contact Alma Brown at (309) 494-8554.
Without looking at the actual addresses, I think I can surmise what’s happening here. You may recall that the building in which Elliott’s wanted to open their strip joint was too close to a residential area according to City ordinance. However, it was just barely too close (no pun intended). So, to get around the ordinance, the owners of the building put up a wall in the middle of the building to turn it into two separate legal addresses. The legal address farthest from the residential area then was able to have a strip joint in it.
Now, it sounds like they’re using part of the other half of the building for a “dressing room” for the strippers, and the City is saying ixnay. If that’s the case, then I agree with the City. If that’s not the case, well, it doesn’t matter because “the City intends to try the case in Court and not the press.” 🙂
More appropriately, it should be described that they are using it as an “undressing room”. I see another lawsuit coming from this……..
What a waste of taxpayer money. Elliot’s has been there for close to five years now and there’s been no significant problems in the area or surrounding neighborhoods. Let it go! The city is acting like a five year old who’s not getting their way with mom and dad. This is stupid.
Tell me, C.J., in precise detail, how this affects the neighbors in any way whatsoever.
Suppose this “dressing room” were a restroom instead. Do not people go restrooms and disrobe, to some extent?
This is a stupid waste of time and money. It’s a case of using the law as a hammer against a particular business. It’s not even about morality, because there are worse abuses against “morality”at the other strip joint in town.
Retribution?
I agree. I live out by Elliot’s and drive by frequently with my children. I thought it would attract a lot of unwanted traffic and commotion. Nothing! It has not been a problem.
This is a just ego. The City needs to let this one go.
In this economy, the City should be thankful for whatever revenue it receives.
Billy — If the distance requirements in the ordinance are not reasonable, then the ordinance should be changed. I’m not prepared to argue for or against the ordinance requirements. However, I do believe that as long as the ordinance stands, the strip club should respect and abide by it. They asserted their rights against the city when they believed they were being violated, and now the city is asserting its rights which are being violated.
Are you saying that if you don’t agree with an ordinance, then you should be able to flout it without any repercussions?
Don’t we have better things to do than worry about where the girls are getting dressed? So they’ll force Elliots to wall off a small section in the ‘legal’ portion for them to change their clothes. In the end, the city will spend a bunch of money, Elliots will spend a bunch of money, and women will still be taking off their clothes on North University.
Silliness.
I agree with the posters. The area has not been blighted by elliot’s presence and the city seems vindictive about having to pay out when they denied elliot’s their liquor license for a number of years. it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that the council caters to al’s (the owner of which also has money in other downtown bars) and will protect their money from competition.
C.J., while you are technically correct, this is a classic case that calls for exercising discretionary enforcement. Municipalities and law enforcement officers do it every day to avoid needlessly and further overburdening the court system. It doesn’t take a cynic to see this for the petty and spiteful retaliation it is.
Oh, and there’s nothing like a press release to avoid trying it in the press.
Never been in there, but I have noticed that there are hardly ever any cars in the parking lot. Why doesn’t the city just let them be and let them go out of business peacefully?
The city could, however, go after the bus which seems to have been permanently parked in the back of the lot, along with the various dumpy cargo trailers.
I completely agree with CJ on this one. Give an inch, take a mile. The settlement agreement was made and all must abide by it. The city (via taxpayers) are going to pay for the attorneys to either work and enforce the laws/codes or sit at a desk. The arguments here to the contrary are somewhat ludicrous, IMO.
Well, I also have to agree with C.J. completely on this one. The business owner should live with and comply with the settlement agreement. If they want to expand into adjoining space they should do so legally and through the proper channels. It really isn’t about morality, stripping or even whether that use is appropriate at that location — those issues have all been settled.
The city’s position is that by changing into their “work clothes” (so to speak) the dressing room is part the adult use part of the establishment. Really? Are men watching them get dressed/undressed in the dressing room? Are the women dancing in the dressing rooms?
If a performer happens to use the restroom located in the diner section of the establishment, does that mean the diner is suddenly part of the adult use section? Suppose there is evidence that while eating cheese fries in the diner, one of the performers in inadvertently adjusts her an article of her clothing. Does that qualify as adult use? Suppose the performers start dressing for work in their apartments. Do their homes suddenly get raised because they — according to city definition — are being used for adult use?
Face it, if the city was being as persnickety in enforcing the rules with any other kind of business, most people would up in arms. And I absolutely guarantee the city would does not play as strictly with Big Al’s.
Come clean, City of Peoria.
Which rich resident of North University is threatening to not support your re-election campaign?
ROFLMAO
That legal department is just a bunch of whores for Al Zuccarini (Big Al’s) and will do anything to shut down the competition.
That stretch of N University has been cursed ever since the abortion clinic was put in there. Why doesn’t City Legal spend their time seeing what sort of zoning or health violations that they can come up with to raise the cost of doing business at such place?
it is good to see chase posting and i wish he posted more on his unlawful and disordered blog.
and to answer kcdad’s question: it probably has something to do with nichting.
Does anyone see this as the City ‘picking-and-choosing’ it’s battles? I know regs are regs, etc, but I would argue that City govt. does have a record of ‘bending over backward’ when it wants to…?
wow, Peo is one wild and crazy town.
I have an idea how to kill two birds with one stone. Let Elliots start the world largest peep show down at the Block Site. similar to this type of video
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1wg41_madonna-open-your-heart_music
Build a high art deco wall around it and have 900 peep stations, charge 2.00 dollars a peek. The city and county will be rolling in the dough. The street vendors can sell hot dogs and drinks. Elliots can have exclusive right to provide the dancer/disrobing employees. With each peep, the city will have a short video extolling the benefits of the area and a link to their site.
What say you.