Posted 11 months, 26 days ago in 
Loading ...
Surprisingly, I agree with a Sentinel editorial. It suggested that Planning Commission recommend that City Council adopt an ordinance banning nightclubs that include purient entertainment. Bars have been given the green light for conditional use permits in many localities. Perhaps the reason for this denial is the type of entertainment.
An underlying principle of the role of Government is: protection and safety of the citizens. To knowingly allow for an atmosphere of potential harm would be in violation of that mandate. The Zoning Code states as purposes of establishing zones: “Protect and maintain the integrity and character of established neighborhoods; prevent unduly noisome and/or injurious substances, conditions and operations and promote the public health, safety and welfare.”
Grand Junction has experience with strip clubs, crack houses, and misuse of massage parlors and existing bars. In testimony by a citizen, Supreme Court Justice Scalia was quoted in a court decision: “the traditional power of government to foster good morals, and the acceptability of the traditional judgment that nude public dancing itself is immoral has not been repealed by the first Amendment.” The concerns voiced by the people during the hearings were for safety of the women on both sides of the “pole,” travelers on the roads, and overall impact upon the City’s reputation and resources including additional taxpayers expense to control outcomes of uninhibited behavior.
Since the application to the Planning Commission contained both the bar/nightclub and the gentlemen’s club they were included in the judicial review and decision of the Commission under provisions of Chapters 2, 3 and 4 of the zoning code and the goals and policies of the City. I believe the Commission wisely safeguarded the people of Grand Junction in denying the application.
Dr. Paul Dibble
Grand Junction
15 Responses to “Gentlemen’s club”
Posted November 30th, 2008 at 8:06 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
This must be a joke. Who does this clown think he is - Dr. Welby? What year does he think it is - 1959? These moral do-gooders need to get a life!!
Posted November 30th, 2008 at 10:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“[The Sentinel editorial] … suggested that Planning Commission recommend that City Council adopt an ordinance banning nightclubs that include purient entertainment.”
That completely twists the Sentinel’s meaning. The way I understood the editorial was, if the planning commission / city council do not want a strip club on moral grounds (which is obviously the case), then they should admit it and take the next rational steps, instead of trying to twist the current regulations in bizarre ways to keep a club out, as they have been doing.
And to THAT I agree.
Posted November 30th, 2008 at 11:19 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ullr asks the following questions: “What year does he think it is - 1959?”
The question can be answered in one word, “Yes”. Many have grown up physically yet they have retained the same intellectual and emotional levels that they had in earlier years. It is called “failing to grow up” in those areas.
As to the issue of “strip clubs” or “gentlemen’s clubs”, most have never been to any of them. Some of us have and what goes on, individuals disrobing and gyrating is, to encapsulate such in one word, it is “BORING.”
As to the statement that these “moral do-gooders need to get a life!!”, that is also true. If they have enough time to stick their noses into the private lives of others, they have too much time on their hands. They might consider re-directing their efforts in order to make more productive use of their time, that is, provided that they can still tell the difference.
Posted November 30th, 2008 at 11:29 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh my! Someone wants to have a place of business where males can go see women with no clothes! What is this world coming to? Surely there must also be a few witches around here we could burn.
“the traditional power of government to foster good morals, and the acceptability of the traditional judgment that nude public dancing itself is immoral has not been repealed by the first Amendment.” I’ve read our constitution and never found a word about “fostering good morals.” I believe it has been repeatedly proven that morality can not be ligislated.
Posted December 1st, 2008 at 10:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Doctor, my eyes have seen the years
And the slow parade of fears without crying
Now I want to understand
I have done all that I could
To see the evil and the good without hiding
You must help me if you can
Doctor, my eyes
Tell me what is wrong
Was I unwise to leave them open for so long
Posted December 2nd, 2008 at 2:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
What is socialism?
By Dr. J. Eugene Fox
http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20081111/COLUMNISTS/811109986/-1/rss01
Posted December 2nd, 2008 at 3:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
sullivan - What on earth does C52’s column on socialism have to do with the subject at hand? Please enlighten us.
Posted December 2nd, 2008 at 4:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class had criticized Mr. Dibble for the inclusion of the title “Dr.” in front of his name. His point was that you should not use that title unless you are implying that your degree has something to do with what you are writing about. (It got pulled by the Sentinel for some reason; he had a valid point and was not being offensive.) I wanted to point out to Class that other people do the same thing and just used this J. Eugene Fox guy as an example.
Posted December 2nd, 2008 at 4:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
oh, geez, that’s hilarious…gg sully
Posted December 2nd, 2008 at 4:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan,
That is hilarious, since J. Eugene Fox is Classof52. (thought you knew)
Posted December 2nd, 2008 at 5:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Since I write a regular bi-weekly column for the Free press, they include a simple identifier at the end telling people who I am. It is a simple social formality, just as I sometimes get identified as Dr. Fox when a friend introduces me to a new acquaintance I do not sign my columns “Dr. Fox”. I have no control over the tag ending which the Free Press includes on their own. The situation is not at all related to sending a letter to the editor and signing it with a title relating to expertise which has no bearing on the subject at hand. Anyone who knows me is aware that I have sent a few dozen letters to the editor of the two newspapers in town and never once have I signed them with my professional title-nor do I include it in these forums.
Posted December 2nd, 2008 at 5:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Reading that explanation I would suggest that spin doctors should not live in glass houses.
Posted December 2nd, 2008 at 8:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan said,
(It got pulled by the Sentinel for some reason; he had a valid point and was not being offensive.)
The version that appeared in the printed Daily Sentinel today did not use the prefix “Dr.” before the authors name. I find the whole incident rather curious. I suppose this won’t stay posted very long, either.
Posted December 2nd, 2008 at 8:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Dr. Science, say it is not so!!!
Posted December 2nd, 2008 at 9:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan: “Reading that explanation I would suggest that spin doctors should not live in glass houses.”
The spinning was done by you, trying desperately to find a discrepancy where none exists. The facts are quite clear. I provided the Free Press with a full page of my background. They selected out what they wanted and I had no control over what they chose to print after my column. Which of those sentences do you not understand?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.