171 replies to this topic

[Terry]

According to the SacBee article, the City of Folsom spent $80,000 in legal fees on this case. I do hope they can collect from Ms. Teaz. Perhaps Ms. Dufour will reconsider the City's offer to take over the lease.

http://www.sacbee.co...-15043715c.html

The article also says that Ms Dufour will continue to defy the ordinance. Folsom doesn't need these kinds of citizens/merchants.

[Al Waysrite]

According to the SacBee article, the City of Folsom spent $80,000 in legal fees on this case. I do hope they can collect from Ms. Teaz. Perhaps Ms. Dufour will reconsider the City's offer to take over the lease.

http://www.sacbee.co...-15043715c.html

costs and fees are two different things. costs (filing fees, copying etc.) are nearly always recoverable for the prevailing party but atty. fees are only awarded in cases such as this if the original complaint was ruled frivoulous/meritiless. I don't think the judge has made such a ruling at this time.

[forumreader]

The article also says that Ms Dufour will continue to defy the ordinance. Folsom doesn't need these kinds of citizens/merchants.

[Dave Burrell]

Sounds like the city hired a very over priced lawyer (who's probably a personal friend of someone on the city council) - just exactly how many hours in court did he put in to total 80k worth of his time? Seems fishy to me.. perhaps just another ploy by the city to try and oust Ms Teaz

Sorry folks but I don't think that business is as bad and evil as you make it out to be. IMO their are some seedy bars right down the street that are far worse then Ms Teaz but yet thats ok? - Its claimed that Sutter Street is a family place and yet it is filled with many bars, pubs and powerhouse.... how many of you take your kids to the bars and powerhouse? Are you going to take them to the new brewery when its built?

What business' on Sutter do folks take their kids to frequently?

Would you all accept that business more if it was located in a different place? or are you just entirely against anything to do with it?

I'm really not trying to stir the pot - I'm just curious to find out what folks are thinking...

[bishmasterb]

The article also says that Ms Dufour will continue to defy the ordinance. Folsom doesn't need these kinds of citizens/merchants.

More power to her. She's running a peaceful business with products that the community wants (or else she wouldn't be in business).

Which isn't to say that there may be a price to pay for disobeying the law (even when the law is unjust). I'm sorry she may have to pay that price and I hope she is prepared for that possibility. Hopefully that price is worth what she is getting out of fulfilling her dream, only she knows whether it is or not.

[forumreader]

More power to her. She's running a peaceful business with products that the community wants (or else she wouldn't be in business).

Would you say the same thing about someone who was running a "peaceful business" out of their home, selling drugs? Would you likewise argue that at long as there is a demand, it is okay?

So we only have to obey the ordinances that we like?

[maestro]

Sac Bee Folsom section gave good coverage to Judge Connelly's final decision in
lawsuit against City of Folsom's sex-object restrictions.

The Teaz argument said the legality of selling the sex-stuff was being determined by the
manner in which it was marketed - and that made it a 1st Amendment issue.


Judge also found the city clearly distinguished between 'allowed vs prohibited items.'


I'm glad the judge saw this correctly because what gets sold, where, to whom, and
how is not a question of free speech. If it were, sellers would argue a right to sell
anything, anywhere, anyhow, to anyone.


I was very interested in the offer of "private individuals" willing to buy out the lease this
plaintiff has -- 4 years remaining. Now there is no cost for this plaintiff to take their
business wherever they want without dispute.



The city claimed to have spent $80,000 on outside defense counsel, not including the in-house
city expenses.

I am certain this large sum could have been better spent in our city. I'm glad the city
won this one. I hope the plaintiff doesn't force residents into paying for an expensive
appeal process.

[Farley]

Would you say the same thing about someone who was running a "peaceful business" out of their home, selling drugs? Would you likewise argue that at long as there is a demand, it is okay?

So we only have to obey the ordinances that we like?

We should not obey ordinances when there is no harm being done, and when the ordinance only reflects up-tight, prissy attitudes instead of the attitudes of the majority.

If there is a demand items will be sold with or without ordinances.

Drugs are illegal and cause harm. Pleasure items are not illegal and harm no one. They are used by consenting adults and do not need bedroom watchers trying to take away citizens' rights.

[dmhosier]

...Its claimed that Sutter Street is a family place...

Sutter Street is NOT a family place. With the exception of Snooks, there is no store on that street where you would want to take your kids. It's funny because a lot of the business owners have been complaining about lost business since the dam closed, but I think the problem is that all the stores are the same basically. How many antique stores or niche artsy stores in 1 square mile do we need? Those stores are more likely to attract browsers than buyers. Plus you know the old ladies that own those stores are scared out of their mind when they see children. Children and antiques do not mix well. If I was a kid and my mom took me to Sutter Street I would probably throw a tantrum.

I've been in Ms. Teaz several times....it's totally harmless. Any "adult" store that has windows can't be all that bad. If the store willfully violates ordinances, then that is difficult to defend, but I am happy that the store exists and gives some life to Sutter Street. Heck, it's nice to just have a store that is open past 5:00 on the street.

[forumreader]

We should not obey ordinances when there is no harm being done, and when the ordinance only reflects up-tight, prissy attitudes instead of the attitudes of the majority.

Long live "uptight, prissy attitudes!"

[Dave Burrell]

Would you say the same thing about someone who was running a "peaceful business" out of their home, selling drugs? Would you likewise argue that at long as there is a demand, it is okay?

So we only have to obey the ordinances that we like?

But the fact of the matter is - she's not selling drugs - she's simply selling lingerie and such.

Ideally ordinances should be obeyed - however this ordinance was created in a seedy manner...

I'd like to point out the following examples of why I think this entire fiasco came about because someone on the council is a christian conservative and they wanted to push their personal beliefs on the entire city:
First there was this code:
Folsom's city code stated that any store could use up to a quarter of its floor space to display "adult-related sexual devices" without being classified as an adult-related business.

Then suddenly they didn't like Ms Teaz and their business so they had it changed - for what seems to only push their personal beliefs / agendas on the city

then Folsom City Council had passed an emergency ordinance prohibiting sale of certain sexually explicit toys, except in designated adult businesses. The ordinance was made permanent in January 2005.

...isn't Ms Teaz considered a designated adult business??

now its
The ordinance amended the city code so that any store selling such devices is considered an adult-related business and is subject to strict location restrictions. Adult-related businesses are not allowed in Folsom's historic district or in any other area close to homes, schools or churches.

and then to hear that the city is trying to buy their 4 year lease? I think this is some kind of scam by a developer or someone who's "in bed" with the city council and trying to take control of Sutter street so they can put in their own business or push their religious agenda

sorry but this just ain't right...

[forumreader]

My point is that we need to obey the law, whether we like it or not.

One can petition the City Council to change the ordinance. But until it has been changed, the ordinance needs to be obeyed.

for what seems to only push their personal beliefs / agendas on the city

You could say that everyone has an agenda to push, don't they? Why is Ms. Teaz' agenda OK, whereas a SUPPOSED "religious right" agenda is not?

[Dave Burrell]

My point is that we need to obey the law, whether we like it or not.
You could say that everyone has an agenda to push, don't they? Why is Ms. Teaz' agenda OK, whereas a SUPPOSED "religious right" agenda is not?

yes but is it right when laws are made to cator only to certain individuals beliefs and not those of the entire city? was a vote by the city taken on this decision or was it made by a handful of people who deem their judgement and beliefs are what the entire city should ahere to?

sorry but I really do think there is something seedy about this whole deal - there is something going on.. some kinda of agenda by someone on the council, a developer or the like that just doesn't jive here and that offer by private inviduals, represented by the city just seem very very odd

I never really considered the Ms Teaz business as trying to push any kind of an agenda - its just a business trying to sell goods and survive - thats not an agenda is it? - or at least it doesn't seem like one to me - but to push certain religous based ideals on others - that to me is an agenda

please don't take me wrong forumreader, I'm not trying to downplay religion or morals or the like I just believe that Ms Teaz isn't doing anything wrong and they aren't harming a single person with their business and as previously posted - Sutter street, despite what some think, is not a place to hang out for children - the business' there for adults as dmhosier noted so well.

[Farley]

My point is that we need to obey the law, whether we like it or not.

and in addition whether it is just or not........the law is not always right, fair, just, and that is why it is questioned. If a law is assinine, it begs to not be obeyed.

Edited by Farley, 23 February 2006 - 11:44 AM.

[Chad Vander Veen]

Farley, that's a terrible argument. There are legal ways to get a law changed. Disobeying it because you don't like it is foolishness. If, as you claim, the majority of Folsom residents agree with Ms. Teaz, then YOU should take the lead in getting a citywide initiative started to elminate the exiting ordinance.