171 replies to this topic

[Steve Heard]

This is a complicated issue, much deeper than whether or not Ms. Teaz is intending to break the law.

The chronology of events, as I see and recall them:

* The City of Folsom has suffered many of the typcial problems associated with the transition from small blue collar town out in the country to burgeoning upscale suburb, including lagging infrastructure, resistance to the ways and ideas of the newcomers, and a rampant drug abuse problem among kids

* Merchants of Sutter Street as well as residents have complained about the failing business climate, blaming it on the closure of the Dam road, lack of cohesion and organization of the merchants and building owners

* Although there have been several viable businesses on Sutter, many more seem stagnant, while other storefronts may as well have installed revolving doors, as tenants come and go. One building has been boarded up for years

* The most successful businesses seemed to be the numerous bars, a couple of restaurants and a candy shop

* Blocks away, across the street from the middle school sit not 1 but 2 liquor stores, each selling pornography in plain view of the children who visit daily to buy candy

* Several parties had plans for opening businesses and revitalizing Sutter

* One of those parties, Ms. Teaz, applied and received permits, rented space, joined the Chamber of Commerce, and started trying to drum up some interest in their business, described as a lingerie shop, with adult novelties to be sold in the back, much like the very successful Evangeline's in Old Sacramento - everything they were doing was legal, and they consulted with the city to ensure they remained so

* Another party hoping to open a business felt this type of shop did not fit, and objected

* Without knowing the facts, or perhaps without caring about the facts, citizens started petitions, complained to the city, went to the press, and spoke at City Council meetings accusing the owners of Ms. Teaz of being perverts and pornographers, claiming that they'd destroy the non-existent 'family atmosphere' of Sutter, and stating that we must fight this because it would bring the wrong element to Sutter, including rapists and child molesters, and that we will not stand for pornography in places where there are children (except of course for the liquor stores by the school). They portrayed Wholesome Folsom's Sutter Street as a place where families take their kids and as 'a street lined with doll houses and candy shops', which of course, is not true. Capital Christian Center and other religious groups were up in arms about it, sending letters and stirring up protests

* A city council meeting was packed with a an angry mob demanding that Ms. Teaz be ridden out of town, while next door, a poorly attended seminar attempted to educate parents that their kids were in danger of becoming drug addicts or overdose victims

* 1 or more ordinances were put in effect banning the sale of things shaped like body parts and things that could be used for restraining someone, and Ms. Teaz was voted out of the Folsom Chamber of Commerce (though accepted by El Dorado Hills and Fair Oaks Chambers). A major medical charity refused to allow them to participate and donate money for a campaign to raise money for a life-saving project. All because of this fear of them selling vibrators and such

* Ms. Teaz opened their doors and became very successful. Folsom folks bought lingerie, jewelry, games, and yes, 'marital aids'.

* They don't sell porn, rapists didn't take lite rail to wreak havoc on our women, nor did child molesters. (a couple of child molesters were arrested, but at least one of them was actually a trusted elementary school teacherl, and was not, as far as we can tell, influenced by Ms. Teaz). Some merchants credited the publicity and patronage of Ms. Teaz with an increase in their own business, something they had hoped for and tried in vain to get, for years

* Ms. Teaz felt they were railroaded by overreacting citizens, and sued to remove the new ordinances put in place to inhibit their business

* A judge ruled that the city has the right to enact such ordinances

* Ms. Teaz has the right to appeal, and has not announced a decision

* A newspaper article claims that Ms. Teaz has vowed to violate the ordinances, though no one else claims to have heard them say that

[forumreader]

* A newspaper article claims that Ms. Teaz has vowed to violate the ordinances, though no one else claims to have heard them say that

Has Ms. Teaz asked the paper to retract that statement?

[cw68]

This is a complicated issue, much deeper than whether or not Ms. Teaz is intending to break the law.

The chronology of events, as I see and recall them:

* The City of Folsom has suffered many of the typcial problems associated with the transition from small blue collar town out in the country to burgeoning upscale suburb, including lagging infrastructure, resistance to the ways and ideas of the newcomers, and a rampant drug abuse problem among kids

* Merchants of Sutter Street as well as residents have complained about the failing business climate, blaming it on the closure of the Dam road, lack of cohesion and organization of the merchants and building owners

* Although there have been several viable businesses on Sutter, many more seem stagnant, while other storefronts may as well have installed revolving doors, as tenants come and go. One building has been boarded up for years

* The most successful businesses seemed to be the numerous bars, a couple of restaurants and a candy shop

* Blocks away, across the street from the middle school sit not 1 but 2 liquor stores, each selling pornography in plain view of the children who visit daily to buy candy

* Several parties had plans for opening businesses and revitalizing Sutter

* One of those parties, Ms. Teaz, applied and received permits, rented space, joined the Chamber of Commerce, and started trying to drum up some interest in their business, described as a lingerie shop, with adult novelties to be sold in the back, much like the very successful Evangeline's in Old Sacramento - everything they were doing was legal, and they consulted with the city to ensure they remained so

* Another party hoping to open a business felt this type of shop did not fit, and objected

* Without knowing the facts, or perhaps without caring about the facts, citizens started petitions, complained to the city, went to the press, and spoke at City Council meetings accusing the owners of Ms. Teaz of being perverts and pornographers, claiming that they'd destroy the non-existent 'family atmosphere' of Sutter, and stating that we must fight this because it would bring the wrong element to Sutter, including rapists and child molesters, and that we will not stand for pornography in places where there are children (except of course for the liquor stores by the school). They portrayed Wholesome Folsom's Sutter Street as a place where families take their kids and as 'a street lined with doll houses and candy shops', which of course, is not true. Capital Christian Center and other religious groups were up in arms about it, sending letters and stirring up protests

* A city council meeting was packed with a an angry mob demanding that Ms. Teaz be ridden out of town, while next door, a poorly attended seminar attempted to educate parents that their kids were in danger of becoming drug addicts or overdose victims

* 1 or more ordinances were put in effect banning the sale of things shaped like body parts and things that could be used for restraining someone, and Ms. Teaz was voted out of the Folsom Chamber of Commerce (though accepted by El Dorado Hills and Fair Oaks Chambers). A major medical charity refused to allow them to participate and donate money for a campaign to raise money for a life-saving project. All because of this fear of them selling vibrators and such

* Ms. Teaz opened their doors and became very successful. Folsom folks bought lingerie, jewelry, games, and yes, 'marital aids'.

* They don't sell porn, rapists didn't take lite rail to wreak havoc on our women, nor did child molesters. (a couple of child molesters were arrested, but at least one of them was actually a trusted elementary school teacherl, and was not, as far as we can tell, influenced by Ms. Teaz). Some merchants credited the publicity and patronage of Ms. Teaz with an increase in their own business, something they had hoped for and tried in vain to get, for years

* Ms. Teaz felt they were railroaded by overreacting citizens, and sued to remove the new ordinances put in place to inhibit their business

* A judge ruled that the city has the right to enact such ordinances

* Ms. Teaz has the right to appeal, and has not announced a decision

* A newspaper article claims that Ms. Teaz has vowed to violate the ordinances, though no one else claims to have heard them say that

Go Steve. A very pragmatic view of the situation!

[bishmasterb]

Has Ms. Teaz asked the paper to retract that statement?

While it would certainly seem to make good business sense to ask for a retraction (if this is indeed true, I have no idea if it is), you aren't implying that the absence of a request for a retraction somehow substantiates the accusation, are you?

[forumreader]

I am suggesting that the absence of a request for a printed retraction may mean that Ms. Teaz did indeed make the statement, just as Steve is suggesting that the newspaper reporting was faulty.

Ms. Teaz owners have been very vocal throughout this conflict. It would seem odd that they would be silent now and not ask for a printed retraction if they had indeed been misquoted.

[benning]

This is a complicated issue, much deeper than whether or not Ms. Teaz is intending to break the law.

The chronology of events, as I see and recall them:
.....

Steve, this is an excellent synopsis. Why don't you try to get it published as an op/ed piece in the Telegraph?

[bishmasterb]

I am suggesting that the absence of a request for a printed retraction may mean that Ms. Teaz did indeed make the statement, just as Steve is suggesting that the newspaper reporting was faulty.

Come on fr, you don't seriously believe everything you're told unless someone refutes it, do you?

[bordercolliefan]

Steve,

I agree with your account, but I believe it omits one significant mistake that Sam and Misty made, which led to much of the uproar. As I recall, Sam and Misty likened their store to a much more hard-core store (up in Seattle, was it?). When some Folsom residents checked into that store, they discovered that it was a blatant sex store, prominently displaying Hustler-style "schoolgirl" outfits, bondage equipment, etc. When people heard about this, they (quite reasonably) thought, "That's not what we want on Sutter St."

The reality of Ms. Teaz turned out to be much more benign than the image initially promulgated. I don't know if Sam and Misty toned down their business as a result of the uproar-- or if they really never planned to have a store like the Seattle store.

Either way, it does seem to me that they had a hand in initiating the controversy.

[forumreader]

Come on fr, you don't seriously believe everything you're told unless someone refutes it, do you?

No, of course not. But in THIS case, it seems plausible that Ms. Teaz, who is already been in violation of the ordinance, may thumb her nose at the law and continue to sell the prohibited items.

[Steve Heard]

Steve,

I agree with your account, but I believe it omits one significant mistake that Sam and Misty made, which led to much of the uproar. As I recall, Sam and Misty likened their store to a much more hard-core store (up in Seattle, was it?). When some Folsom residents checked into that store, they discovered that it was a blatant sex store, prominently displaying Hustler-style "schoolgirl" outfits, bondage equipment, etc. When people heard about this, they (quite reasonably) thought, "That's not what we want on Sutter St."

The reality of Ms. Teaz turned out to be much more benign than the image initially promulgated. I don't know if Sam and Misty toned down their business as a result of the uproar-- or if they really never planned to have a store like the Seattle store.

Either way, it does seem to me that they had a hand in initiating the controversy.

The store you speak of is called Spartacus Leather of Portland. I was not in on the 'mistake' or conversation where that store was mentioned, but as I understand it, Sam said that he would sell things like you might find in Evangeline's or Spartacus. The other party planning to open his a business on Sutter flew up there, and discovered that, just like Evangeline's and the Halloween shops that turn up every fall, Spartacus sell costumes. Perhaps it's a subject for another thread, but Halloween for woemn seems to be increasingly less (can I say 'increasingly less'?) about looking scary than it is about looking like some sort of temptress, be it Playboy bunny, school girl, nun, flapper, hooker or any other skimpy outfit. They were HALLOWEEN COSTUMES!

Furthermore, Spartacus is a huge store, 2 locations, thousands of square feet, selling all sorts of items, and yes, some of it is bondage related and some of it is sold to Portland's large gay community.

When Sam said, 'That's not what I mean', his pleas fell on deaf ears.

That the store turned out to be more benign is claimed by Ms. Teaz as the original plan, but by others as the result of their efforts. We'll never know.

Still, it wasn't benign enough for some.

As for the question of whether or not Ms. Teaz has asked for a retraction, I have no idea. I don't know if they made the claim, I don't know if they've read the story, I don't know if they've asked for a retractioni, and I don't know if the Bee has granted one.

That matter is the least significant, in my book. Most significant is the way two hard-working people who took their life savings and tried to open a legitimate business were thoroughly and shamefully mistreated and accused of all sorts of nasty things, then further ridiculed for defending their rights and seeking a judgement from the courts.

[Dave Burrell]

This is a complicated issue, much deeper than whether or not Ms. Teaz is intending to break the law.

The chronology of events, as I see and recall them:

* The most successful businesses seemed to be the numerous bars, a couple of restaurants and a candy shop

* Blocks away, across the street from the middle school sit not 1 but 2 liquor stores, each selling pornography in plain view of the children who visit daily to buy candy

* One of those parties, Ms. Teaz, applied and received permits, rented space, joined the Chamber of Commerce, and started trying to drum up some interest in their business, described as a lingerie shop, with adult novelties to be sold in the back, much like the very successful Evangeline's in Old Sacramento - everything they were doing was legal, and they consulted with the city to ensure they remained so

* Another party hoping to open a business felt this type of shop did not fit, and objected

I know exactly who this is and lets just say it makes what they will be selling much less desirable (even tho I like it a lot)

* Without knowing the facts, or perhaps without caring about the facts, citizens started petitions, complained to the city, went to the press, and spoke at City Council meetings accusing the owners of Ms. Teaz of being perverts and pornographers, claiming that they'd destroy the non-existent 'family atmosphere' of Sutter, and stating that we must fight this because it would bring the wrong element to Sutter, including rapists and child molesters, and that we will not stand for pornography in places where there are children (except of course for the liquor stores by the school). They portrayed Wholesome Folsom's Sutter Street as a place where families take their kids and as 'a street lined with doll houses and candy shops', which of course, is not true. Capital Christian Center and other religious groups were up in arms about it, sending letters and stirring up protests

* Ms. Teaz opened their doors and became very successful. Folsom folks bought lingerie, jewelry, games, and yes, 'marital aids'.

* They don't sell porn, rapists didn't take lite rail to wreak havoc on our women, nor did child molesters.. Some merchants credited the publicity and patronage of Ms. Teaz with an increase in their own business, something they had hoped for and tried in vain to get, for years

* Ms. Teaz felt they were railroaded by overreacting citizens, and sued to remove the new ordinances put in place to inhibit their business

* Ms. Teaz has the right to appeal, and has not announced a decision

Steve, a thousand thank you's for that great post - very well said and right on the money!

Steve, this is an excellent synopsis. Why don't you try to get it published as an op/ed piece in the Telegraph?

Outstanding idea!!

[Dave Burrell]

The other party planning to open his a business on Sutter flew up there, and discovered that, just like Evangeline's and the Halloween shops that turn up every fall, Spartacus sell costumes. They were HALLOWEEN COSTUMES!

When Sam said, 'That's not what I mean', his pleas fell on deaf ears.

Most significant is the way two hard-working people who took their life savings and tried to open a legitimate business were thoroughly and shamefully mistreated and accused of all sorts of nasty things, then further ridiculed for defending their rights and seeking a judgement from the courts.

Steve, I have the utmost respect for you and your opinion on this. You know the situation very well and you are calling it exactly as it is seen by those of us who don't have it out for Ms Teaz.

The worse part of all of this is that the majority of the opposition was instigated by that "other party"... the fat cat with the big bucks who is buying his way into this town come he11 or high water - at anyone's expense who gets in his way. He's the one I keep referring to as "owning" the city council - he greases their palms, they grease his

that person is on this board and I hope he reads this soon - the devious ways he's going about corrupting the ethics and morals of our officials in this town will one day be exposed and I hope he falls hard on his arse - his day will come

[Steve Heard]

Steve, I have the utmost respect for you and your opinion on this. You know the situation very well and you are calling it exactly as it is seen by those of us who don't have it out for Ms Teaz.

The worse part of all of this is that the majority of the opposition was instigated by that "other party"... the fat cat with the big bucks who is buying his way into this town come he11 or high water - at anyone's expense who gets in his way. He's the one I keep referring to as "owning" the city council - he greases their palms, they grease his

that person is on this board and I hope he reads this soon - the devious ways he's going about corrupting the ethics and morals of our officials in this town will one day be exposed and I hope he falls hard on his arse - his day will come

I do try to see it from both sides, and I sure as heck wouldn't want a peep show or porno theater on Sutter Street, either.

I want to be careful not to demonize the people who were initially afraid of what they thought Ms. Teaz was about, nor do I want to accuse the City Council folk of any wrongdoing. They were faced with countless letters, phone calls, and emails, as well as the crowds at the council meetings. To my knowledge, there weren't many people defending them in the same way.

I don't think the Council had a choice but to respond with the new ordinance, which limited certain things, but allowed them to run their business.

I do believe that the developers have what they believe are the best interests of Sutter Street at heart.

They have a vision, and that type of store isn't in it.

The problem is that the vision they had of Ms. Teaz was incorrect, and as evidenced by the fact the store has survived, lots of people agree that the shop should be allowed to continue.

I understand that some of those opposed have since realized that Ms. Teaz has been a great neighbor and hasn't harmed Sutter Street at all, and in fact, may have helped bring people down there.

[Dave Burrell]

I do believe that the developers have what they believe are the best interests of Sutter Street at heart.

They have a vision, and that type of store isn't in it.

The problem is that the vision they had of Ms. Teaz was incorrect, and as evidenced by the fact the store has survived, lots of people agree that the shop should be allowed to continue.

I understand what you're saying and you're right that we have to view it from all sides and we cannot discard opinions of those who oppose it.

however, I have a problem with a developer dictating what the city does and doesn't do - and I have a problem with someone using their money to influence others into getting their way

The issue of what Ms Teaz sells is not as big a problem (IMO) as big bucks controlling what goes into Sutter street

[Joe]

Steve your post is an excellent overview of the situation at hand. Kudos!