The strip club issue is being shown as a zoning vs 1st Amendment issue, but there is far more to it than free speech.

Primarily it is a property rights issue, since the first (and most major) piece of property anyone owns is their own body, who gets to determine what is done with one's own living body, the person or the government? It is a clear either or situation, no compromise, no grey area, no middle ground. If one owns one's own body, the government has no say, whatsoever; if the government owns one's body, one is a slave. In our nation/government no one is supposed to ever be a slave, everyone is supposed to be a free individual; therefore each person is supposed to be free to determine for him/herself what s/he will do with or to his/her body.

In addition, property rights give the owner of the building the sole right to determine what occurs within that building, so long as it does not interfere with anyone's unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. The government, and nosy or complaining neighbors, have no right to alter that unalienable right to control one's own property except through direct negotiation with the property owner as long as the owner does nothing that causes bodily harm to the neighbors or to their properties. Offense is not a valid constitutional reason to interfere with someone's property rights.

Seattle is being prudish. The Mayor is seeking to impose a moral stance on legitimate buinesses. This issue should be dealt with directly through zoning.

I don't patronize strip joints but am against setting up unrealistic rules trying to put them out of business. Pushing the activity underground is worst than having it out in the open.
We already have too many taboos. Sex is a NORMAL part of life. Get use to it.

Because of the content of my comments, I do not want my name used.

I hear discussion regarding crime due to these strip clubs and occasionally someone will mention prostitution. But I never hear anyone talk about 'why' they visit strip clubs. With so many other choices for entertainmet, the sole reason is for some sort of sexual fantasy or desire. Not only do I not hear the people that frequent these establishments interviewed, but I don't hear you interviewing the wives of the men who "sneak' to go there. My ex-husband was one of those men. He got so turned on that he turned to a prositute for gratification because he knew he didn't dare come home and tell me what he had been up to. Strip clubs 'do' lead to prostitution and break ups of marriages!! I know. Thank God for the mayor of Seattle to 'try' to get rid of them. And at least this new law may help the situation and make it not quite as much 'fun' for these guys to visit!

Referendum 1 is a movement to make Seattle more prudish. People claim it’s to make Seattle more family friendly but that’s patently false. Families don’t enter strip clubs, only adults do. Cities should have a variety of activities for the variety of people that live in and near them. This referendum is clearly designed to put strip clubs out of business because some people that don’t patronize them don’t like what goes on inside.

Some people claim there are increased crime levels due to strip clubs but the facts don’t support their assertions. In fact nothing in the new rules would address anything that may or may not occur outside the building.

What ever happened to freedom and liberty and not poking your nose into your neighbor’s private choices? For years now I’ve watched the attitudes of more and more people shifting in the direction of intolerance. If they don’t exercise a right or take part in an activity they are more than happy to curtail that right or the ability for others to engage in that activity while fighting tooth and nail for those that they do enjoy. Respect for the fellow man seems to be more and more a thing of the dim past.

Thank you for addressing this issue. Unfortunately, your framing tends to mislead. Ordinance 121952 actually decreases minimum distance between stripper and john from six feet to four feet.

Washington State and U.S. Supreme Courts have both determined that free speech rights are not involved here.

The new lighting standard (equivalent to the light from three candles!) simply makes current law enforceable without police officers having to buy lap dances and participate in illegal activity prior to writing a citation.

The same guys who brought Strippergate to Seattle bring Referendum 1 to us. They are trying to protect their illegal income stream. I hope Seattle voters will see through the propaganda about prudes and property rights and free speech and “nanny state” to vote for Referendum One and put Ordinance 121952 in place, supporting the realistic approach of Mayor Nickels and a majority of the City Council.

If Jean Godden and other city council members want to join felons to bring legalized prostitution to Seattle, let them shed the hypocrisy and bring that to a vote.

I agree that all humans should have the right to do as they please with there own body's, but I also agree that this should only be for watching/previewing it should not be an open door to make it legal for prostitution. Because as one person mentioned above that her husband went to a club and paid for a prostitute this should not be able to happen but if men or women choose to show off their body's for money than that is totally up to each individual now if they are doing this not by choice then there again it is considered prostitution so this needs to be supervised by the city the club is in or the State it is in which ever handles watching over strip clubs and making sure they are safe and following all guide lines, regulations, etc.!!!

As regards a causal link between strip clubs and prostitution:
A man who solicits a prostitute after visiting a strip club will do the same thing without having visited a strip club.

As regards breaking up marriages:
If the person is not getting what they need from the marriage, attempts to prevent them from getting it elsewhere can only, at best, delay that marriage's dissolution.

As regards the sponsors of the referendum:
To make a decision on an issue based on the issues proponents, rather than the merits (or lack thereof) of the issue itself is to willfully ignore logic and reason in favor of irrational, emotional response.

The current restrictions unfairly target and pre-judge workers engaging in legal employment. If these people were employed in any other job, we would find suggestions to place restrictions on how close they could get to their customers or regulate the brightness of their workplace ridiculous. Consider that before you vote against Referendum 1.

Seattle is powerful silly with sticking it's nose so far into the entertainment industry. Regulating lighting? Isn't that OSHAs business? Our good neighbors LA, San Francisco, Portland, Vancouver, and many others are all more open with live music, theatre, lounges, and adult enterainment and haven't exactly burned down (in recent history). Seattle is totally regressive in this department and it doesn't fit a "world class city" to behave so victorian. Prostitution has been alive and well in Seattle for the duration of the ban - people always have cars and other avenues to conduct their business in. Crime is not relevant to this referendum.

Fund increasing Law enforcement, not enforcing bizarre blue laws. Vote against Ref 1. Send this garbage straight back to the State Nanny.

The Seattle City councel needs to spend more time addressing the real issues and get out of dictating morals. Seattle is plumb full of homeless. Why don't they try to address this issue. Or how about the drug problems? Why don't they try to focus on how to get rid of drugs in the city? If they really want to win some points, why don't they clean up the busses? They are full of urine and fecal left there by drugged up homeless, they are disgusting! Maybe it's time to clean house in the city councel? They are out of touch with the real issues.

To whoever supports Ref. 1

Prior to Robert Mak's Sunday morning Up Front, I listened to the news..I should have counted all the places the police were required to be because of killings, accidents, etc. in less than a 12 hour period. (yesterday I called the police because I witnessed some teens smoking pot on a childrens' playground, with children present.) The point is I do not want the police who are supposed to be protecting, investigating, putting their lives on the line, to have to carry a yard stick+ around to measure distances of exotic dancers.
Worry about the morality of the people in your house, worry about the war in Iraq; Be Thankful if your kids ARE NOT on drugs or if they aren't doing the dancing you object to. Be thankful for your blessings, and leave the strip clubs alone. They always were and they always will be.

If you want to clean up Seattle start by getting rid of the Mayor. With all the problems there are why the big deal about strip clubs.

I'll vote yes on ref 1. I see no merit for helping these businesses grow and prosper. Sorry for the sweeping generalization, but the types of people visiting these places are not really worth arguing about and I doubt they vote. Ref 1 will pass in a landslide.

I used to dance, and I have to say that closing the clubs is gonna hurt a lot of people. A LOT of the girls were VERY YOUNG single mothers, supporting their families on their own, and if they were smart, also putting themselves through school. It was great to actually have the opportunity to do that. These girls didn't need anyone's help - not the government, not their parents, not a man. My guess is that if ref 1 passes, the welfare rate will go up.

yay for strippers
boo Referendum 1

This is my reply to comments up above. It is said in the comment that you are "sorry for the sweeping genralization, but the type of people visiting these places are not really worth arguing about and doubt they vote. Ref 1 will pass in a landslide" Well being married with 2 kids and have visited strip clubs before and I vote, I believe I'm worth arguing about. I go for pure entertainment. Does my wife know I go? Yes! Most deffinately. Men get turned on by visual stimulation. To just generalize everyone and tell them what they should or shouldn't do is incorrect. I believe if you don't like it then you shouldn't participate in those types of places plain and simple. By the way there was a landslide, I saw Ref 1 sliding down the hill into oblivion. =)