On the agenda for Monday’s City Council meeting is a change to the city’s adult business ordinance that would allow Big Al’s to move to a new location while keeping their “grandfathered in” status. The council communication explains:
Since approximately 1978, the City has had an adult business ordinance that restricted the locations of adult businesses by limiting their distances from other adult businesses, from churches and schools, and from residentially zoned properties. There has always been at least one adult business that has not been in compliance with the ordinance but has been grandfathered and, therefore, allowed to continue at its present location. The attached ordinance would allow such a business to relocate, obtain an adult use license for a property which brings the location more into compliance. The relocation may provide an opportunity for the City to take advantage of a significant development opportunity.
In other words, Big Al’s adult use license would follow them to a new location. They wouldn’t have to reapply. And they continue to be “grandfathered in.” Couple this with the liquor license that was requested for 414 NE Hamilton (which the Liquor Commission didn’t approve or deny), and I think you see where this is going.
Once again, oblique reference is made to “a significant development opportunity,” which is rumored to be either an expansion to the Pere Marquette or a new hotel that will be connected to the Civic Center somehow (pedestrian bridge?). In any case, the deal apparently hinges on allowing Big Al’s to move without giving up their adult use license, so the city is doing everything in its power to facilitate that.
I’m concerned that by doing this, the council will be invalidating their adult use ordinance. What I mean is, they’re changing the ordinance to benefit one business. If they do this for one adult business and not another, with no consistent or reasonable justification for such discrimination, the ordinance becomes arbitrary and capricious, and ultimately unconstitutional.
For example, in 2002, the owner of 617 W. Main St., Frank Genusa, also had a grandfathered-in business called Playmate Video. When he changed tenants to a business called The Dungeon Music and Apparel that sold the same kind of adult material, the city revoked his adult use license, saying the grandfathering no longer applies — even though it was the same landlord, the same type of business, and the same location. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that place is gone, but you see my point: the rules seem to be rigidly applied to one owner, but easily changed for another.
The next year, the strip club now known as Elliott’s started its effort to get an adult use license at its North University Street location. The city fought that by denying a Class A liquor license for the establishment (a requirement for selling liquor if the establishment also holds an adult-use license). That resulted in a lawsuit that eventually cost the taxpayers several thousand dollars, and they got their liquor license after all. Again, the rules are applied aggressively to one business, but bent and rewritten for another.
Why the double standard? This “significant development opportunity” must be a real doozy. I wonder when the public will be let in on the council’s little secret.
CJ: Wasn’t there a strip mall recently approved in the Dunlap area near Allen Road that did not have specifics? If yes, than our city council must just be trying to be consistent.
The slippery slope is awash with oil.
Even if a citizen was able to attend a public hearing — now there is not enough information to make any type of valid comment because now we have projects best known as ‘The Emperor’s New Project.” Just try to be a neighborhood group or a non-connected individual and try to advance an ‘incomplete’ application to a hearing.
The icing and sprinkles will be that citizens will want to get behind this new project because …. “a significant development opportunity,” is being advanced for which all details are invisible to the taxpayer’s eye. Cannot wait to see how much money this latest endeavor will remove from our collective wallets.
The council is all completely bought and paid for on this one. The fix is in and even the law firm nearby the new titty bar will be ignored and are powerless against this move. Every single public official across the board has been taken care of on this and nothing can or will be done, so just chill out and move along, there is nothing to see here.
Just to play Devil’s advocate, assuming that the “rumors” you heard were true, what do you think should happen here CJ?
I heard it was to be the largest freestanding title loan establishment in the free world.
I agree with most of what CJ says on this one but I think in this case the good far outweighs the bad.
This deal may smell bad and be bad but it is overall good for the Main St. area and that is more important in this case.
If they don’t allow this deal to happen AL’s will stay right where they are for the rest of our lives. Nothing in the block will ever get better.
If this deal helps the Pere’ stay in business it is far better than having that hotel sit empty. If it allows the Civic Center to get the hotel they want and need then that is good too.
I say just let this deal happen and move on.
…and a big part of it is none of our danged business cause it’s all private property.
Why bother C.J.? The movers and shakers in this town have and always will call the shots.
Wow – I guess I’m just thick – I don’t see how this is favoring one business over any others. It’s the same business and the new location is more closely compliant than the existing one. Further, it was necessitated by major development that is good for our downtown and for hotel/convention business sector. What’s not to like??? Seems to clearly fall within CJ’s need for a consistent or reasonable justification. Such a variance is far from being either arbitrary or capricious.
Diane,
Diane-I find your opinions so interesting. If this is just about “private property” then why is the city involved at all?
As a real estate sales person you are aware of zoning laws- the laws that govern public space- yes?
Since you are swift to offer opinion please hark back to May’08 because CJ’s concern is no different than the issue you faced in District 150 regarding the shortened school day.
You were quick to react and pull together a citizen group because you did not like the fact parents, principals, and teachers were left out of the decision making process when they decided to shorten the school day. You know that only a handful of administrators devised this solution without thinking through the logistics and ramifications. You were outraged when your questions and input were rebuffed. As a blogger, you wanted to be respected and included in the press conferences. I know you were highly critical of and often used some very strong language when you reacted to the School Board’s and Superintendent’s decisions.
Eventually the administration agreed to a meeting once the parents from Kellar said WTF…. and then it was only made public when Bill Dennis learned from you there would be a meeting at Kellar to inform parents about the shorter school days and he posted it on his blog.
During the Kellar meeting the administrators spun the shorter days as beneficial to both students and teachers. When the vote came before the School Board Jim Stowell cast the lone no vote. It was only later, after hearing from so many parents, that Rachel Parker and Linda Butler would change their mind and vote against the shorter day-they were obviously persuaded by the constant bombardment of information and pleading from your group. Their votes mattered little as the majority of the school board would be in favor of some version of a shorter day.
With all this behind you why do you feel the need to rush a comment off on CJ’s blog ALWAYS in support of the current city council? To my knowledge you have never worked in city hall, served on a public commission, sat on a city ad hoc committee or run for public office. If you have served in some way please let me know and I will be less critical of your comments. Peoria board of Realtors positions do not count for this particular discussion.
The current City Council and the Mayor are just as complicit in their unwillingness to include the public as they make decisions that affect the public. They do not ask for advice and they do not encourage involvement unless of course it serves their political needs. They do not respect the opinion of others unless of course, like you, they fall in line with the status quo.
Diane- you have so much to offer. Your energy is unrivaled- but your ignorance is your handicap. Please learn more about why these urban planning issues matter. Peoria needs to step into the 21st century and establish itself as more than a ticky tacky, hick town loaded with girlie bars and low life
Not only does Al own the entire block and no doubt will make a killing off of the sale, he will surely reap all kinds of $$ rewards in people ‘needing’ to check out the new location once it is open. AND, I’ll bet he bought up all those buildings with the sole intention of finding a buyer (hotel biz) ever since the Civic Center announced the need for another hotel and knew he could sell this very easily to the city. Things that make you go Hmmmmm?
First of all, George, I have no idea who you are so not sure what stake, if any, you have in all of this. Although, personally I dont care because I’m not planning on submitting to your inquisition.
Secondly, I’m sure you are clever enough to make your point without calling me names, so give it a try sometime.
Lastly, private property issues and public school issues that involve our children are 2 different beasts.
This just in….
http://www.pjstar.com/news/x1585811414/Downtown-hotel-plans-unfold
Sometimes you guys can be a little thick. Big Al’s has HISTORY!!!! Sure, it’s only a strip club, but it was/is probably the ONLY downtown business that ever hit the national scene.
The attraction may not be what it once was, but I still run into people outside of Peoria who say, “Peoria?!? Isn’t Big Al’s in Peoria?!?” Trust me. They don’t say, “Peoria?!? Isn’t that the future home of the multi-million dollar Peoria Regional Museum?!?”
Well I guess we know where new Voice hangs out!!! LMAO!
This is sad, but true! Phil Donahue and all those CAT guys from God knows where…. People would come from all over the world …
Lastly, private property issues and public school issues that involve our children are 2 different beasts.
Diane: I would agree to disagree with you on your statement. Either we have the ability to have public input and be included in the decision making or we don’t —- public process should be the same regardless of the specific issue at hand.
George: Another bullseye. Did you turn in your petitions to run for city council yet?
This is it: CJ works for a church. The church doesn’t like strip joints. It isn’t a matter of unfairness against any other strip club. It is simply the fact that those involved in a church don’t want to support a strip club anywhere on the planet.
George, you make some good points, but I must have missed the election results that made you the Ultimate Arbiter of Blog Post Worthiness.
Emtronics, is there some rule in our democracy that states that people who work at or go to a church are not allowed a voice in what happens on this planet? I would be the first to admit that we are sometimes obnoxious in opposing some of our “pet” vices, but it would be a sad day if our views are discounted just because we go to or work at a church.
Karrie, Yes we can agree to disagree on this. Talk about a broad brush. Of course the public has a say in the matter, the question is how much. You have to recognize that there ARE private proverty rights at stake here – not to the exclusion of all else but it is part of the equation nonetheless.
Diane: Yes, that is true individual property rights in context of current regulations. Nevertheless, there is a process in place and requirements to be fulfilled to process an application, in this case a liquor application. What is the purpose of a process which does not have consistency and adherence for a minimum and complete disclosure of what is being applied for in a particular application? In my neighborhood as well as other neighborhoods in Peoria, there are different standards for different players.
I am unable to understand how there at least appears to be a double standard for Big Al’s vs. Elliot’s respective application process. You would need to review Elliot’s history to notice the details and the rhetoric used to deny Elliot — it is inconsistent. Now, for a perspective economic development deal, the city council appears ready to change the rules to benefit one business.
Having been involved in a neighborhood issue involving the use of federal funds, the grant recipients’ representatives, plus city of Peoria officials and a federal officials’ chief of staff were all to willing to negotiate two neighborhood groups’ rights away (a new agreement was proposed which did not use the federal guidelines, no right to contact state or local authorities regarding this issue and so on) — to ‘look’ for funding to move this particular neighborhood issue forward. A pig and a poke, Just seems hauntingly familiar to me.
What happens in one part of Peoria does affect what happens in another part of Peoria. We are all interconnected whether or not one chooses to acknowledge that reality is one’s own choice.
Emtronics — Yes, I work for a church. Yes, neither I nor the church to which I belong like strip clubs. I’ve got nothing to hide there. That doesn’t change the fact that this is bad public policy. It’s bad public policy regardless of where I work or what views I hold about strip clubs in general.
Ladies – Diane and Karrie,
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I have it – on good authority – that you are both considering a ‘little’ part-time work……?
Maybe at a local gentlemen’s club….? Hhhhhmmmm……….?
SWEET JESUS! Things are looking up in the River City!
Diane,
Names?
To my knowledge I haven’t called you a name unless you are referring to the word ignorance which is derived from the word ignorant an adjective defined as: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness. I do not consider it derogatory – we are all ignorant in some respect. When you wrote
“…and a big part of it is none of our danged business cause it’s all private
property…”
I thought if only you knew more about the principles of urban planning then you would understand why it is, as you put it, our dang business. Private property in toto makes a city. We have zoning laws, city ordinances, and comprehensive plans so that as property gets developed it is done so with forethought. The idea is that eventually, as the city is developed, it does so in a way that benefits everyone – not just a select few.
The majority of the “requests for council action” brought before the Peoria City Council are from either the department of planning and growth, public works, or inspections. All of these decisions involve private property or the public streets and sidewalks that connect THE PRIVATE PROPERTY. Peoria has simply never done a good job of planning. So, we get what we get and it is not great.
And finally, your statement about what stake do I have- the same as you and everyone else living in Peoria. We should want the entire city to be thriving and full of people living well. Unfortunately, I do not have confidence that the current city council understands why these decisions matter as they sit as the final authority. The majority of them are ignorant too and I have witnessed little, if any, effort on their part of learning more because some of them think they know it all.
Blogs such as CJ’s are read by hundreds, including the city council. They asked for the job so they had better be able to take the criticism as well as the praise when it is deserved.
CJ: Why can’t the city just eminent domain the property on which Big Al’s sits and use the public nexus as being “civic center expansion.
Didn’t the original build of the Civic Center take out all of the other adult licenses that competed with Big Al’s.
Chase — Precisely. There is no need to give Big Al’s preferential treatment. The city didn’t bend their ordinances for Eagle’s Cleaners or anyone else whose property they took for the “wonderful development” of the day (Civic Center, Campustown, Midtown Plaza, ballpark, etc.). Why should the rules be rewritten for Big Al’s?
There are 90 million reasons to give Big Al’s “preferential treatment.” The allows for exceptions to be made. The idea that moving the joint two blocks is somehow so bad we’d say ‘no’ to a $90 million (mostly) private development is just, well, ludicrous.
Billy, you know as well as I do that you’ve just made a false dichotomy — i.e., that either we move Big Al’s to Hamilton Blvd., or the $90 million development won’t happen. That’s total hogwash. Big Al’s can move someplace that is consistent with the existing ordinance. The city could acquire Big Al’s property through eminent domain. There are lots of different scenarios that could play out, and in every one of them, the development could go forward.
It’s not a false dichotomy. Big Al’s owners WANT to move to the address on Hamilton. They own it. They obviously think this site is the ebst for their business. They have applied for a liquor license and will seek to be granfathered in. That is the choice before us. If they were seeking to move this at another site, you and others might very well be saying the same thing: “Why not somewhere else?” It’s this attitude that drives developers nuts.
Hmmm……something I never thought I’d see. Billy supporting a private development deal in the downtown. I wonder if he has inside info that leads him to this position or if the need to be contrary is driving the position.
I love the legal concept that has been developed to enable the continued grandfathering…….bring into “greater compliance” with the standards. That is a slippery slope that the Council is considering going down. The new location may be further from a church facility but is most likely closer to residential areas. The extent of the benefit of being in “greater compliance” is NEGLIGIBLE but will be utilized as the key rationale for moving forward with the development – like it or not.
Whether under a voluntary sale or a forced sale due to eminent domain, Big Al’s owners stand to make a pretty penny on this deal. Plus their dancers will get some new poles to play on.
I think eminent domain is a great idea.. how about a city run cat house?
Peo Proud: I agree — greater compliance — wordsmithing at its’ worst — recollections of “What is…?” come to mind. If the city council changes the ordinance for Big Al’s look to the future where it will be changed for another adult use. Grandfathering now becomes a game of preferential hopscotch vs. only the original site.
And New Voice: Wondering if you are drinking really strong Cool-aid or taking mind altering drugs? If not your authority must be listening to peeping wizards.
I would like to see Big Al’s remain in business. I don’t care whether it is at its current location or a new one. What’s important is that we have robust, free-market competition in the Peoria strip club market! Plus, think of all the boob jobs that wouldn’t happen if Big Al’s wasn’t here. Show some concern for the local plastic surgery economy!
C.J.’s point is the correct and overriding one here. It’s sometimes easy to forget that ours is a government of laws, not men. Ordinances are not guidelines to be used at the Council’s discretion as whimsical clubs, carrots, or facilitators. We can’t just dust off ordinances when they suit certain fancies (the demand for Schock’s fundraiser reimbursement comes as easily to mind as the instant case) and ignore them when they don’t. Absent the Elliott’s debacle, I might be a little more up for some wink wink, nudge nudge maneuvering for this project.
All that said, this is an opportunity that must be encouraged by all legal and reasonable means. If it moves forward as proposed, however, any blind eye turned or accommodation made should be remembered well when the next Elliott’s or Adrenaline arises. To do otherwise will only foster the already vibrant perception in Peoria that certain entities are afforded more and/or different options and privileges than others.
Careful… someone might not be able to recognize parody…
WMBD is reporting that the Attorney’s Office’s of Quinn, Johnston, Henderson & Pretorius are vehemently objecting to the relocation of Big Al’s near their office. They are talking about Kids on the courthouse square during the summer sings and families walking into their office. At this point I would say all bets are off for the Hamilton location. My $$ is on the Attorney’s. Perhaps Big Al’s et al. should be looking a little harder at the warehouse district, as Paul Wilkinson suggested. It would be a perfect fit. Hooters from 5 – 7 for appetizers, and Big Al’s for the entree. An ideal evening to celebrate the objectification of women.