Friday, March 17, 2006

It just depends

Even if one were to accept the legitimacy of bylaws enacted to control public behaviour, council's recent decision to revoke the licence of Sweet City 2 is disturbing. An admittedly ridiculous provision in the bylaw in question prohibits rub and tugs from opening up next to an occupied residence. When Sweet City 2 applied for the licence, the house next to the plaza was officially unoccupied. But the time was fast approaching for the parlour to open up and after the owner invested $60,000 in renovations, crumbling under pressure from a small gang of Londoners concerned about their pets, the city voted to reject the license, despite initial legal advice which strongly advised the city against such an action. But some guy who apparently helped maintain the space and who by his own admission, would like to see the "gorgeous" parlour open, claims he lived in the residence in question at the time the application was made. A former neighbour supports his claim. He powered the house with a generator and apparently satisfied his water needs by purchasing bottled water with the tax money he saved, as the house was not officially drawing water from collective pool. Two people = one voice = majority rule.

Neighbours are still angry the city even considered issuing a licence.

About a dozen neighbours and businesses told the board they opposed the parlour.

Among them was Carole Johnson, a tax lawyer, who said she couldn't get answers from city staff on why they would allow a parlour next to a home just because it wasn't occupied.

The bylaw that limits adult entertainment prohibits their location next to a "residence" -- there is no mention the residence must be occupied.

"It was either an incredibly bad interpretation or an incredibly bad law. I'm a tax lawyer and I find it easier to interpret tax law than this bylaw, which seems strange to me."

If the interpretation isn't clarified or the bylaw altered, other neighbourhoods could face the threat of adult entertainment parlours in their backyards, she said.

"We have won the battle, we have not won the war."
Now that city council has "resolved" the body rub parlour issue here in London, they are now free to find other "creative" ways to interfere with private property.

An article from the London Free Press published on March 2 covers ongoing problems at a boarding house on Queens Avenue located next to a daycare centre. Since 2003, the police have visited the address more than a hundred times, reportedly for drug offences and bail violations. Last year, the owner was billed $1200 for a city ordered cleanup of the backyard, which revealed approximately 175 needles. The landlord says he was a victim of bad tenants, and now claims the troublemakers are gone. The city is now focusing on the general disrepair of the building, and working on an enforcement stategy:
The enforcement strategy includes co-ordinating action and information with police; continued monitoring and enforcement of infractions; seeking hefty fines for non-compliance; and repairing building code violations at the owner's expense, while adding the cost to the tax bill.
An article from a few days back indicates the city is now considering seizing the property.
London is closely watching the use of a little-known provincial law to close a Hamilton bar that's been the scene of drug-related crimes, including two murders.

And two city councillors hope the same law can be used to shut down problem-plagued properties in London, such as a Queens Avenue boarding house police and city officials have visited more than 100 times the last few years.

The Ontario Attorney General's office was to be in a Hamilton court today in a bid to close and seize the now-defunct Sandbar in Hamilton's downtown to end years of troubles.

[..] City council agreed to step up enforcement and even repair the home, adding the cost to the owner's tax bill.

That's the action Deputy police Chief Tony McGowan said is needed before even considering using the Civil Remedies Act.

"This is a process that is used sparingly because it's a last-resort option," he said.

"It's not a quick fix. There are very strict guidelines to use this law and you really have to show you've exhausted all avenues."

But Coun. Cheryl Miller hopes the law can be used. "I don't want to hear the reasons why we can't do it," she said.
Stuff thine ears with cotton agrees Anne Marie DeCicco and Gord Hume:
"You want to be very careful when the state is intruding on the individual property owner's rights," said Controller Russ Monteith. "Once you do it to this property, you can do it anywhere. It seems to me nobody's asked the question, 'What's the least intrusive way we can achieve this goal?' "

That sentiment, although accepted by the board, sparked frustration.

"It is intruding upon the neighbourhood, harassing neighbours and it's not acceptable and we should take whatever action necessary," said Controller Gord Hume.

Mayor Anne Marie DeCicco also wanted stronger action.

"The things we're doing every day aren't working and unless we try something different, we're never going to close down this place," she said.
Shut down the building and the tenants will simply move into another neighbourhood, such as a government run housing project, or into a downtown London alley or street corner. Just like the body rub patrons will visit another house or cruise the pothole ridden streets looking for someone willing to accept the pay.

I'm not into living next door to a rub and tug or a bunch of crackheads either, and neighbours are justifiably frustrated, but petitioning the government to intervene on behalf of your special cause is nothing other than arbirtary fascism.


Honey Pot said...

arbirtary fascism? Lisa you are losing it. The hoods are following the laws of the land to get rid of people who feel they don't have to follow the same laws. What is the alternative? Take that bunch of child rapists they just caught trading videos of raping babies. The law says they get three and half years in jail for raping children. When we know a more fitting punishment would be a bullet between their eyes. If the laws don't protect the common people, than the common people will just take the laws into their own hands. Which would you prefer Lisa?

Lisa said...


I think you've already lost it. I don't think you'll find too many babies at a rub and tug. Child rapists are criminals, but people voluntarily providing sex for money to patrons willing to pay involves no criminal wrongdoing. If a woman is raped, then the man is committing a violent act and so should be dealt with accordingly.

Remember, not all "laws" are just and nor should we consent to the rule of the biggest gang of all - the state. The fact that there are criminals does not justify the essentially arbitrary abuse of property rights by the state.

If you are actually interested in my thoughts on defense and such, you can plod through the comment section of a previous post, which can be read here. I might also recommend you obtain a copy of "The Ethics of Liberty" by Murrary Rothbard.

Honey Pot said...

Oh come on Lisa, we all read Atlas Shrugged when we were 12, but most of us got over it. You can find anything at a rub and tug. Little girls selling themselves for drugs. These men that buy woman and children are doing it for power and control. You really don't have a clue what is going on in the world around you, do you? There has to be laws Lisa, sort of necessary to protect children from evil fuckwits whose boner is more important to them than another person's life.

Lisa said...

I never mentioned Ayn Rand Honey, but instead Murrary Rothbard. Sorry to hear that you that you got over the idea of liberty and personal responsibility.

As for the rest of your comment, we've argued this before. Criminals rob banks - should we ban banks because there is higher risk of criminal activity associated with banks than grocery stores?

Ban rub and tugs and people will still engage in the behaviour. They'll just move it on over to a residence or local motel or back alley. Once again, what is at issue is sex between consenting adults. Forcing children and unwilling women to have sex is properly a violent crime but unrelated to the essential points I am making in the above post.

Honey Pot said...

Somethings shouldn't be ok Lisa. Having a whorehouse sit up in your hood would be one of them. This eutopia of freedom you are forever espousing can't exist. Everytime you lower the bar on social standards, bad shit happens. A whorehouse is not a harmless thing. A whorehouse is just a sign of how oppressed woman and children are in the world. A whore house is just a sign that men have no control over their dumb sticks. They need to evolve.

Lisa said...


So, what you are saying is that sex between consenting adults is okay, so long as there is no "monetary" exchanged involved?

Honey Pot said...

I am saying sex between two consenting ADULTS is fine as long as they are on equal footing. When your sex life is contributing to crime stats, and the angst of a hood, it is best you don't do that anymore.

Pietr said...

Oh dear.Honey Pot gave the game away.
Scratch the 'reasonable' exterior and you get the hard social fascist.
End of the line.

Pietr said...

(She's probably a retired,male college lecturer in New Jersey).

basil said...

All bars should be closed. While some folks may drink responsibly, others can not control themselves and sometimes minors will sneak in and drink too; this is illegal, of course, and we know that it is the result of the pressure on the youngsters by older men who insist on getting them wasted so that they can have sex with them. We should never have repealled prohibition: Everytime you lower the bar on social standards, bad shit happens. A [bar] is not a harmless thing. Besides, bars often provide a place for drug dealers to gather and sell drugs to unsuspecting women so as to trap them in a cycle of addiction and prostitution. It is well known that women are of inferior intelligence and are easily exploited by men with drugs whose dicks render them more powerful than women. Let's face it, all men are exploiting scum and women helpless victims due to their naturally inferiority. Once we have closed the obvious palaces of sin (bars and whorehouses), we must next eliminate male child and youth leaders as well as male teachers. It is obvious that if you want to get near vulnerable minors, clubs and schools provide the best means for access. Though some might think pedophiles gather at establishments which officially bar minors, one can see the advantages of such predators gathering where the most exploitable are unsuspectingly gathered. And because all men have dicks, we know that they are powerless over their urges, so that even the most disciplined will become victim of his own hard-on.

Honey Pot said...

I got this thing, anything that is a major contributor to human misery should be examined closely. Now if you can do something, and it causes no harm to anyone but you, by all means go for it. As soon as your fun fetish is interfering with the well being of others, than it got to be kicked to the curb, so to speak.

Pietr said...

Would you go so far as to analyse and codify that?
Even turn it into a consistent system of rights?

Honey Pot said...

I did, I do. See I see a whorehouse as a thing of oppression, even harmful. A whorehouse doesn't produce anything good. It is throwback to the days of slavery. We should be evolving as a society. I often wonder what is wrong with males,as a group, that they could never envison anything beyond their penis. Too much group think amongst males, no wonder everything is so fucked up in the world.

Pietr said...

If you can bring yourself to taking a look at my blog, read the post about 'job interviews'.

Granted that some of the so-called jobs a fake and designed to rape the minds of the victims, would you ban all employment?

Honey Pot said...

I suppose I should read your blog, to get to know you, but then again I prefer my own tactics of engagemnet. Never know what you are going to find out about a person by pissing them off.