Posted on 01/22/2006 8:05:29 AM PST by SJackson
New Haven - Residents of New Haven asked the town board what it will do to close a sex club there, and the board members said they were working to do so, but no action has been taken.
The board had on its agenda a discussion with Michael Bennin of the Wetspot and his attorney, but neither the attorney nor Bennin showed up at the meeting Thursday night. The Wetspot opened in the fall and is described as a private club for those who enjoy the "swinging lifestyle" � the exchange of sexual partners.
Not having representatives of the club at the meeting did not stop the 26 residents at the meeting questioning board members about what was being done.
Town Chairman Robert Krause said the clubs move in where there is no zoning. "The thing is everyone is afraid of these guys."
The clubs and their attorneys try to intimidate officials with threats of lawsuits, which was done at the board's December meeting when the club was first discussed by the board, he said.
At that meeting, the board heard that a lawsuit trying to close the club could cost up to $600,000 and the town would have to pay the costs if it lost.
"We can't afford not to," an audience member said in response to Krause's comments.
Kenneth Crothers, another audience member, said no one in the town was for the club, and the board should not "lay down and play dead too quickly." He suggested that taxpayers might be willing to pay to get rid of the club.
Crothers was at the meeting to get board approval of a certified survey map of a .41-acre plot of land purchased by the Big Spring Congregational Church. The land is to the east of the church.
Joan Beyers, wife of Board Supervisor Myron Beyers, suggested a petition be circulated showing support for closing the club. She also suggested forming a citizen's organization and taking down license plate numbers of the club's patrons then publishing them. Others in the audience said that might be illegal.
'Trust me'
"Trust me; we'll do what we can," Krause said, and promised the board "will not drop the ball."
Supervisor Jim Beard said people needed to offer more constructive criticism than complaining about the club. He said the board had received letters, both signed and anonymous, and others had been published in newspapers. Newspapers, he also said, had published articles. Rather than sit and complain, Beard said, people should offer solutions. Those that live near the club should keep records of activities there, he said.
Krause said he had been in touch with a state building inspector with the state's Department of Commerce to have him inspect the club and close it for violating building codes.
The club opened with out getting any building permits, according to Krause, and is in what was once a warehouse for a recycling firm that formerly owned the property. The county, he said, would not inspect it because it did not have an inspector certified for commercial buildings. He said he had difficulty reaching the inspector, but when he did, after contacting Rep. J.A. Hines office, had a promise the inspector would do so in two weeks.
The board also approved sending Krause and Beyers to the Wisconsin Towns' Association Capitol Day this month. Krause said he would use the trip to Madison to visit the Commerce Department and the "state's attorney" apparently meaning the Attorney General's office/Department of Justice.
Krause said the county is checking the club for serving food without a permit. It advertises on the Internet that it has a buffet.
Members of the audience also asked about enforcing the town's ordinance on adult-oriented businesses and the county's ordinance.
County Supervisor Glen Licitar said the county passed its ordinance this month, after months of postponing it. The ordinance requires that any such club be in a commercial, industrial zone.
Krause said he had not had time to thoroughly review the county ordinance, but the town's ordinance appeared more restrictive. He said the town's ordinance needed to be amended to specifically reference swinger's clubs.
Beard commented that "there's no place in the country these ordinances have been upheld."
Krause also said he had been in touch with Citizens for Decent Government of Phoenix, Ariz. The group provides free legal advice to fight sexually oriented clubs and businesses. Then, Krause described how lawsuits against such businesses were appealed immediately when they lost and noted that one case started in 2001 was still being contested.
This place is out in the boondocks, but not all that far from the Twin Cities in Minnesota. That's probably where the customers for the place are coming from.
It's a knotty dilemma for the community. They, apparently, did not have any zoning regulations against this type of business, and are stuck in a spot with no good solution.
There is, apparently, no law against people having sex with each other, and no zoning against places that are in business to supply a place for people to have sex with each other.
That the spouse swapping behavior is disgusting to most people, myself included, doesn't make it illegal. Trouble is, adults get to have sex with whomever they wish to have sex with.
About the only way this community is going to get this place closed up is through other laws. Food service requires health department approval. Building construction must meet building codes.
Time to send in the health and building inspectors to see if they can find enough violations to cost the owner enought that he/she will abandon the business. If that doesn't work, the community is in big trouble. There's a prohibition in the Constitution against bills of attainder, so they can't rezone the area and kick these people out.
The best procedure is to use legal means to make it uncomfortable for those who would patronize the place. Stress is on legal. Simple harassment will only get the harassers in trouble.
Ahem...
Sounds like the Kennedy approach to Alito.
From other articles, there is a county adult establishment ordinance, but apparently some disagreement as to whether a swingers club is an adult establishment in the same sense as a strip club or book store. Also, apparently the club proprietors didn’t bother complying with local zoning ordinances, which could be a problem but I suppose only if they’re non compliant.
It’s an interesting case in terms of enforcing local standards, perhaps more interesting since the same little town won a multi year battle with Perrier and the State of Wisconsin over the construction of a bottling plant.
Not really, if you're opening a business or remodeling a building, you'd be well advised to comply with local ordinances.
Thanks. I just did a MapQuest search. I didn't realize there was another one over near the Dells. Sounds like this could be a costly battle for the community, unless they can find a way to legally harrass the business until it closes up.
And systematic efforts to make a particular person or persons uncomfortable is not harassment?
You're also risking running into nuisance torts (interference with the enjoyment of one's property) and invasion of privacy torts (public disclosure of private facts, and/or intentional invasion of solitude/seclusion). The particulars would depend on local statutes.
However, some of these places are quite discrete, above board, and don’t present an inherent problem to the community. I suspect the owners want it this way. They probably put a lot of their money into this club and don’t want it closed down. If that’s the case, leave ‘em alone. Not only is it legal for adults to engage in this sort of behavior, it’s none of your business.
"From other articles, there is a county adult establishment ordinance, but apparently some disagreement as to whether a swingers club is an adult establishment in the same sense as a strip club or book store. "
I can see how that might be a problem. It's a private club, apparently. So, unless there is illegal activity going on inside, it would seem like there's little the community can do on those grounds.
Is this an incorporated city or some other entity, or is it just a community governed by the county? These swingers organizations generally do their research pretty well, I think. I'm betting that the location is outside the town's borders, but adjacent. That's the usual strategy. It is in what was a long-standing commercial building, so it'll be difficult to nail them on running a business in a non-commercial area.
The private club thing means that the public is not invited into this business, which opens another legal can of worms. Nobody's being paid for sex, so the prostitution laws don't come into effect, and I'm pretty certain that Wisconsin has no laws against adults having sex with each other.
These cases usually get very ugly, and very expensive. A town of 300 probably doesn't have the resources to carry on a long legal case.
Unless they can close this down based on building codes or food codes, they're going to have a real problem.
"And systematic efforts to make a particular person or persons uncomfortable is not harassment? "
No question about it. However, enforcement of building codes and public health laws cannot be construed as harassment, if carried out properly.
Photography of cars entering the place from the public roadway, also, is probably permissable, although publishing those photos might be a problem.
Generally, alcohol is available at these places, too, usually not for purchase, but supplied by the "guests." Enforcement of the DWI laws in Wisconsin might be a possibility, along with strict enforcement of traffic and vehicle safety laws.
Are these measures harassment? Sure they are. But they're legal.
Did you get the FR Mail I send you?
"Are there zoning laws in the Twin Cities that make it difficult to open such a club there? "
Yup. The "Gentlemen's Clubs" and "Adult Shops" in Minnesota are generally out in the counties, rather than in the cities. There's a pretty strict set of zoning laws in Minneapolis and St. Paul that make it virtually impossible for them to operate. Stuff like minimum distance from schools, churches, and the like.
The same restrictions have forced the gun shops out of the cities, as well. Pawn shops will probably be next.
I don't disagree with you regarding these businesses. Personally, I don't care if they exist. I have no interest in such things, but if they're not breaking any laws, they're not breaking any laws.
That's the question here. Are they breaking any laws that the town can use to get rid of them? My bet is that they are not.
I suppose minding one's own busines is out of the question.
Live cameras showing traffic flow are common.
Just why the American people want to live under the constant and ubiquitous threat of lawsuits baffles the rational mind. It has already priced health care out of the reach of everyone.
Every one of those paper wrappers around your coffee cup is a reminder of the scaulded-by-hot-coffee collection.
Every time you find yourself on the pay-telephone, standing in the cold and/or rain and/or sleet and snow because there's no enclosed phone booth, think of the lawsuit.
When you buy a ladder covered with absurd warning labels, remember: you're paying for them--because of lawsuits.
I guess the hope of winning the lottery makes it worth it to lots of people.
Maybe it's the hope of getting even. If so, there must be lots of angry, paranoid people out there.
Not me. No thanks.
It’s a small rural town of about 600. It’s self governing, but most services, including zoning, are provided by the county. They’re in violation of multiple zoning ordnances, remodeling, septic, and water (I think that’s state as well), but I’m sure those could simply be corrected. The Perrier case I alluded to was settled on local level. Funds were raised by the community, which might be feasible here. Even the towns in the Wisconsin Dells area, better financed though in different counties, aren’t pleased. Equally important, whether the proprietors have the deep pockets for this kind of battle.
"Even the towns in the Wisconsin Dells area, better financed though in different counties, aren’t pleased. Equally important, whether the proprietors have the deep pockets for this kind of battle.
"
I understand. I'll try to keep an eye on this one and set up a Google news alert on the town name. It should be interesting.
I wonder: Does the owner of this establishment live in the area?
Here we have a bunch of consenting adults who are on private property out in the middle of nowhere having sex with each other.
There's not a shred of evidence that these folks are breaking the law or harming anyone at all. The most anyone can come up with is that they might be serving a 'buffet' or they put up some sheds without a permit.
But, we can't have anything like that. Oh no, the 'conservatives' around here don't like the fact that consenting adults on private property might possibly be having fun in a way they don't approve of.
My God, if the Counties in Wisconsin started actually looking for every shed that was thrown up without a building permit they'd be mighty busy, not to mention extremely unpopular with the locals.
These folks ought to have a chat with the folks in Black River Falls, WI. The local Swingers club there pumps (no pun intended) several hundred thousand dollars into the local economy every summer. And how I know this isn't really of anyone elses business.
Yea, minding your own damned business is great when it's homeschooling, or churchgoing, but when it comes to sex it goes right out the window.
Bunch of freaking hypocrites...
L
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.