188 replies to this topic

[TLC]

The Telegraph's story this week: http://www.folsomtel...ries/05teaz.txt

[MsTeaz]

http://www.sacbee.co...-13738290c.html

[YabYum]

http://www.sacbee.co...-13738290c.html

hey, Ms. Teaz....do you see this (City attorney stepping down) as a positive (for your suit), or do you think it will have little impact?

[pampChefLady]

Sorry I haven't had the time to chime in on this very one-sided thread to voice my support for your comments now and in the past. If the "new" people to the argument go back to that LOOOONG thread from when the store was announced, they'll see that there were many very reasonable concerns and questions raised. These questions were from the store's OWN plans which they subsequently said were incorrect (evidence of duplicitousness or incompetence?). Anyway, the point is, this isn't about wanting to persecute a "legitimate business." Like Cyber said, a community of people should have the right to decide what kinds of businesses they want in THEIR town. If there are disagreements on those standards, then the majority's opinion is what wins. If you don't like the standards of that community, you leave or try to change them by electing different officials. These people forced themselves onto a community that was not very welcoming of their products. That created a lot of negative feelings toward them. Now, they turn around and sue the city so they can stock the things they said they never wanted to stock in the first place. And we're supposed to brush that aside and hope they do well?!! Sorry, but although I'm not terribly offended by their current products, I am offended by their attitudes, and I hope a more thoughtful business owner provides some nice competition in another part of town...

I don't intend to add any more replies to this thread, I think I've stated my case, and don't have time to read all these posts defending the "poor victims"...

Have at it.

I still see nothing about the demise of the store.  I've noted the great efforts the owners take to keep their name in the public eye.  I've noted that I do not approve of people suing in order to gain publicity.  I've noted that the majority of the attendees at the city council meeting voiced support of the ordinance and not the store.  I've noted that dmarkum has some weird conspiracy theory that went unexplained.  I've noted in the prior forum (not this one for which y'all seem to want to attack me) that the owners were not willing to answer questions about content early on.  (If you're going to go back to old topics and posts, you have to go back over the WHOLE conversation because there was a progression and not just a conclusion.)

The problem we have here, right now, is that some newcomers are jumping in at the tail end of a long process and long discussion, reaching conclusions based on lack of information, and then deciding to attack me just because I have the nerve to express my own thoughts and to provide information about how the process worked.  You may not like how the process worked, but it did work.

So, now, just leave me alone.  I am not a publicity-seeking, for-profit store.  I am a citizen who actually does quite a bit for this community that has nothing to do with some stupid store that I don't much care about.  This isn't about me.  Get back to your support of the publicity hounds.

[MsTeaz]

Everyone is definately welcome to their opinion, and we see many as valid arguments. We were nearly drawn into a lengthy discussion of what occured to bring us to this point; however, we both believe that Jim Snook's statement in the Bee speaks for itself as one who was once in opposition as a result of the power of the opposition. We both do know the truth, and we feel good about taking a stand. We cannot make everyone happy (though we honestly wish we could as this is who we truly are). If everyone could play fairly and all shake hands, we'd love nothing more then to all live peacefully amongst each other. Finally, the back room is the back room which we have to this day keep open only to 18 and over.

[Adamal]

I've heard a lot of talk about how the majority feels about this store. Well guess what no one knows how the majority feels unless we have all of folsom take a vote. Just because a lot of people came out in opposition to the store during a meeting doesn't mean that it is representative of the folsom community. The vocal group whether in the minority or majority tends to come out when they see something they don't like. So unless someone has done either a scientific representative poll or the folsom community has done a vote, don't say that you speak for the majority. Because you really don't know.

[Dave Burrell]

http://www.sacbee.co...-13738290c.html

Hopefully this is good news for you? Perhaps one less conservative to battle with...

[MsTeaz]

A very thought provoking commentary that was shared with us:
http://www.sddt.com/...ode=20050516tza

[MsTeaz]

A very thought provoking commentary that was shared with us by the author familiar with the case:
http://www.sddt.com/...ode=20050516tza

[Dave Burrell]

Interesting article - tells alot.

Nice seeing you folks yesterday - the shop is looking great, thanks for everything.

Dave

[valdossjoyce]

[/right]

One of the very first things my daughter did on turning 18 was visit the back room. The last time I searched her room it looked like she made some purchases (or maybe her friends got them for her as birthday presents.) Sometimes a mother would rather not know...There was a bag from Fredericks of Hollywood, so who knows. (I've never been inside either)

But I did give her a gift certificate for the bellly-button piercing because she was going to do it anyway and their facility is fastidiously clean.

[parklady]

All legal and money hunting issues aside, it is an extremely TACKY store, with no taste in merchandise (yes, I have been inside) and IMO it adds absolutely NOTHING to improving the character of the historic district.

[camay2327]

It seems to me that this article should now be in the business section. All this is now is advertising for Ms Teaz.

[pampChefLady]

All legal and money hunting issues aside, it is an extremely TACKY store, with no taste in merchandise (yes, I have been inside) and IMO it adds absolutely NOTHING to improving the character of the historic district.

Was my point precisely...

[Steve Heard]

Pamp and Park

I agree that the shop may not be to everyone's taste, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to exist. They don't sell adult items to minors, nor do they display them in the window, so they are harming no one.

Tacky or tasteful, we have to let the market decide which businesses survive.

Most of the shops and bars on Sutter are not to my taste. I just do go in them.