188 replies to this topic

[Terry]

MsTeaz...

you guys keep up the good work...

I would be angry too if some stinking Folsom beaurocrat walked into my business when customers were there....

I remember the same crap when a "tatoo" parlor wanted to open up on Natomaa few years back... oh the outcry then.....haven't heard squat since...

There's just a few vocal complainers down there and that's all...

Hang in there....

Actually, the City was never opposed to the tatoo parlor - in fact, the police chief, and many others spoke in favor of it. It was the school teachers and parents who were so vocal against it - poor little kids would have to walk by it to get to the zoo!

[Chad Vander Veen]

EDF and Farley in agreement!? Has the world gone topsy-turvy?

[old soldier]

the code enforcement visits sound a little like harassment. they ought to take a picture of them when they come in. however if the code folks are just making visits to all the places on sutter street it would be ok...

the fact the store has been there and nothing bad has happened sort of backs up what they said when they started. there are too many junky old antique shops there which doesn't make it very exciting

seems like the city might be bullying as a time out from the bamboozeling that goes on with all the backroom deals and developer romance.

[Steve Heard]

I hope they can reach a settlement.

I am not a politician, but I know the ones we have were swamped with complaints from citizens about the evil underwear store.

It turns out they weren't so evil after all.

[EDF]

Terry....

I don't know if the city cared one way or the other about Ms Teaz... except for all the screaming, whaling and nashing of teeth from the poor folks on Sutter Street..

and yea when Farley babe and I agree on something... then maybe there is hope for Farley....

[pampChefLady]

So, are we to understand that if the ordinance is repealed, Ms Teaz will not expand their inventory to include whips and leather (as that is what the ordinance applies to according to the SacBee article)? OR is it more likely that after another six months, they'll quietly start adding these things "...because it's not against any laws..." As I recall, the majority of the outcry in the beginning was to their original "incorrect" business plan that called for them to sell all sorts of "extreme" devices of a questionable nature (notice I refrained from deviant or perverted b/c I don't want to start the argument over what's "normal" again).

I don't know, seems to me that if those items have never been considered, then trying to repeal the law against them would be pointless.

If making a point is truly the motive, think of another way to get it across. Otherwise, folks who complained in the first place have nothing else to do but say "I told you so."

Finally, can someone explain to me how ordinances regulating what-can-be-sold-where violate "freedom of expression" ???!!!

(For the record, I went into the store to check out what they carry. Was mostly unimpressed with the limited scope of their inventory - doesn't seem to be much beyond honeymoon/wild fling/bridal shower joke. That means there's still room in Folsom for a nice, high quality lingerie boutique... maybe I'll open one.)

[UncleVinny]

Mmm! I see it as growing pains.
Small town USA meets big city sophistication.
We're not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy!

Well, at least it's not as bad as Texas, where they are planning on passing a law to prevent cheerleaders from gyrating too provocatively!

[Adamal]

Well, at least it's not as bad as Texas, where they are planning on passing a law to prevent cheerleaders from gyrating too provocatively!

now you've gone and given them more ideas

[Steve Heard]

So, are we to understand that if the ordinance is repealed, Ms Teaz will not expand their inventory to include whips and leather (as that is what the ordinance applies to according to the SacBee article)?  OR is it more likely that after another six months, they'll quietly start adding these things "...because it's not against any laws..."  As I recall, the majority of the outcry in the beginning was to their original "incorrect" business plan that called for them to sell all sorts of "extreme" devices of a questionable nature (notice I refrained from deviant or perverted b/c I don't want to start the argument over what's "normal" again). 

I don't know, seems to me that if those items have never been considered, then trying to repeal the law against them would be pointless.

If making a point is truly the motive, think of another way to get it across.  Otherwise, folks who complained in the first place have nothing else to do but say "I told you so." 

Finally, can someone explain to me how ordinances regulating what-can-be-sold-where violate "freedom of expression" ???!!!

(For the record, I went into the store to check out what they carry. Was mostly unimpressed with the limited scope of their inventory - doesn't seem to be much beyond honeymoon/wild fling/bridal shower joke.  That means there's still room in Folsom for a nice, high quality lingerie boutique... maybe I'll open one.)

The thing is, we should not have a problem with them selling whips and cuffs. We don't have to buy it, and they aren't hurting anyone. Why would we care? They don't sell to kids.

We have Kiss n Tell on Sunrise, selling nothing but sex items, and Evangelines in Sac, selling the kind of stuff Ms. Teaz sells, but on a much larger scale.

Your right, their inventory is limited, largely by the size of the infamous 'back room'. It is harmless stuff, though. For adults only.

As long as they aren't selling drugs, guns or porn to kids, why should we care?

[Adamal]

All I can say is WOW!!!

I've been away from this forum for a month and I come back and what do I see this topic (in one form or another) back on top.

[Robert Giacometti]

Interesting development.

The owners probably anticipated some negative feedback from parts of the community prior to their opening of this store. It seems to me, this issue has evolved into more of a battle of wills, than just a lingerie store. This seems to be between the owners and the the unofficial powers to be, who seem to resent the fact the owners have sorta thumb their noses at them and opened their store without their blessing.

I wonder how many other businesses have unannounced inspections with code enforcement officers? The real question is are these code enforcement officers being directed to do this or is this something they are doing on their own?

Another question I have is, since the City of Folsom has contracted with the Chamber of Commerce to provide Econmic Development and promote Tourism and Ms Teaz has a legal business license from the City to operate its business, is the City liable for the Chamber of Commerce's denying membership and benefits to Ms. Teaz.

Maybe the lawsuit will address some of these issues.

I do not know the owners, but I did stop in the store a while back and browsed around the front. The staff were friendly, but I didn't buy anything, as they didn't have anything in my color or size.

[tgianco]

The thing is, we should not have a problem with them selling whips and cuffs. We don't have to buy it, and they aren't hurting anyone. Why would we care? They don't sell to kids.

We have Kiss n Tell on Sunrise, selling nothing but sex items, and Evangelines in Sac, selling the kind of stuff Ms. Teaz sells, but on a much larger scale.

Your right, their inventory is limited, largely by the size of the infamous 'back room'. It is harmless stuff, though. For adults only.

As long as they aren't selling drugs, guns or porn to kids, why should we care?

Don't forget that Ms. Teaz can serve a valuable role in putting together your Halloween costume, if you;re into that sort of thing.

[old soldier]

this topic adds a little excitement to the forum. Old soldier won't be buying any clothes but the idea of whips and chains might add a little spice to life. Will have to watch that real close. gotta be careful because the wife may get some bondage ideas and will be buying the old soldier a dog collar.

Old Bob Giacometti has a point with the inspections being harassment. when you think about it the city hall folks and their friends pretty much get their own way. with the money for signs they win all the elections and they put down the south of 50 citizen uprising after a battle. However Ms Teaz so far can claim a victory and that just might make folks mad

when you look at history the chamber and the city hall folks are bonded at the hip. wonder if the the other sex stores which I guess are racier than ours are chamber members in their cities.

[bishmasterb]

So, are we to understand that if the ordinance is repealed, Ms Teaz will not expand their inventory to include whips and leather (as that is what the ordinance applies to according to the SacBee article)?  OR is it more likely that after another six months, they'll quietly start adding these things "...because it's not against any laws..."

Are Folsom businesses really prohibited from selling whips and leather?

Where am I going to buy new shoes? And how will I control the horse that pulls my buggy?

[mylo]

Are Folsom businesses really prohibited from selling whips and leather?

Where am I going to buy new shoes? And how will I control the horse that pulls my buggy?

Whips, chains (which you can get at Home Depot) and leather for "adult purposes". They're also not allowed to sell anything resembling human anatomy :\