Gilbert Limits Tattoo Studies - article AZ Republic (Mesa, Glendale: fit in, sales)

[azriverfan.]

LOL....see something wrong in the title! Yes, we can't spell or write well.


Tattoo studios, pawn shops, hookah lounges and payday loan stores may have a monopoly of sorts if they choose to open in Gilbert.
[COLOR=#2573c2 !important][COLOR=#2573c2 !important]Town [COLOR=#2573c2 !important]Council[/color][/color][/color] in a 4-3 vote approved a change to the town's code that requires those businesses to be located at least 1,000 feet from each other and 1,320 feet from schools and day care centers.
The four types of "nontraditional businesses" also must also apply for a conditional use permit, which costs $1,590 and takes three months plus a public hearing for approval.

The code also expands the law to cover the Heritage District, which was previously exempt. A tattoo studio, 5th Estate Tattoo, recently began moving into a spot on the east side of Gilbert Road in the Heritage District.
Under the new ordinance, if a tattoo studio opens in a [COLOR=#2573c2 !important][COLOR=#2573c2 !important]shopping [COLOR=#2573c2 !important]center[/color][/color][/color], no competitor would be allowed within at least 1,000 feet of them, in effect giving that studio a measure of exclusive access to customers who visit that strip mall.
The code change has been an ongoing issue since Councilwoman Linda Abbott first raised it in a public meeting last December, noting other cities have passed anti-clustering laws too late.

When clustering of the four business types occurs, problems arise for neighbors and the overall quality of the customers visiting other nearby stores declines, said Senior Planner and Zoning Administrator Mike Millilo.
In order for the town to restrict certain businesses, it has to prove a "rational basis" for those rules.
Millilo said Gilbert's rationale for the restrictions is that when those four types of nontraditional businesses move in, it signals to customers that an area is not as nice as it once was and they don't shop there anymore.
"It's more of a perception that the demographics of the area are changing and it may affect sales for other businesses," he said.
That perception wasn't enough to convince Councilman Steve Urie, who voted against the measure. A property manager, Urie said the code change was discriminatory and overly restrictive because it means the town chooses which businesses may open and which may not.
"Since when did the town get into the economic divining business and start establishing who's viable and who's not?" he said.
The free market will take care of businesses that cluster too close to one another, so a town law isn't necessary, said Les Presmyck, who also voted against it.
"I just have a real problem somehow establishing criteria that says some businesses can have a monopoly over others," he said.

He and Urie both pointed out that dentists, lawyers, gas stations and fast food restaurants would love the kind of exclusivity granted to the first "non-traditional" business to open in an area.
Councilwoman Jenn Daniels, who also voted against the measure, asked for specific data on the "negative potential effects" on other businesses, but Millilo said there was no hard data to support it.
Still, those businesses need to be regulated, said Councilman Dave Crozier, arguing: "It's about creating an atmosphere where clean businesses can survive."
Mayor John Lewis said keeping the town "clean" was what swung his vote for the restrictions.
He said he initially opposed it, but changed his mind because other business owners told him their move to Gilbert "had so much to do with a clean, safe, vibrant community."
Councilman [COLOR=#2573c2 !important][COLOR=#2573c2 !important]John [COLOR=#2573c2 !important]Sentz[/color][/color][/color], who voted in favor of the measure last month as a member of the planning commission, voted for it again Tuesday night.
Abbott said businesses weren't the only ones at stake: residents living in the surrounding neighborhoods, or in the town in general, ought to have a say in what businesses move to town, she said.
Leaders of the Chamber of Commerce and Gilbert [COLOR=#2573c2 !important][COLOR=#2573c2 !important]Small [COLOR=#2573c2 !important]Business[/color][/color][/color] Alliance each spoke against the measure, but no other residents came forward.
The town currently has two open tattoo shops - Black Lotus Tattooers on Baseline Road near Gilbert Road and Malefic Ink on Gilbert Road. 5th Estate Tattoo will open its doors about a mile south of Malefic in the Heritage District.
The owners of Black Lotus and Malefic were both part of the community focus group used by the town to draft the code.
Both were in favor, but Malefic's management has said the shop was in favor of the measure because it would restrict competition.
Malefic's shopping center features the tattoo shop prominently, but there's also a psychic, accountant, dentist, pet groomer, Thai restaurant, day spa and laundromat in the center, which is near an apartment complex.
There is at least one vacancy in the center. With the new code, no other "non-traditional" business can move into that spot.
Having a tattoo studio nearby isn't necessarily a bad thing, said Joe Johnston, owner of Liberty Market and Joe's BBQ, both in the Heritage District and a stone's throw from the new tattoo shop.
Those businesses may help draw more people to the district, he said. And Liberty Market is geared toward a younger, quirkier crowd, he said.
"I hope they come over here for lunch afterward," he said.



Gilbert limits tattoo studios, other businesses

[azriverfan.]

Actually, I think this is a pretty smart rule by Gilbert. If you drive through certain parts Mesa or Glendale, you will see these pockets of payday loans and pawn shops that does bring the area down.

I'm suprised they didn't include smoke shop/drug paraphanelia stores like Trails. Anytime I see a Trails store, I immediately get a negative connotation of the area.

That being said, I do think this rule is pretty unfair. Yes, I think the rule is smart but un-American at the same time. The town is essentially deciding which businesses can be established. Seriously, what's next....bars! This is Gilbert essentially putting it's official stamp that it's a Mormon town that stresses family values. There is no more argument regarding that. The Gilbert apologists need to stop trying to pretend the town is anything else. But like the Mayor said, it's for these reasons that people are attracted to Gilbert. I don't see any problem with that. You don't have to live in Gilbert if you don't like it. I chose to live in Chandler for a reason.

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by azriverfan.

Actually, I think this is a pretty smart rule by Gilbert. If you drive through certain parts Mesa or Glendale, you will see these pockets of payday loans and pawn shops that does bring the area down.

I'm suprised they didn't include smoke shop/drug paraphanelia stores like Trails. Anytime I see a Trails store, I immediately get a negative connotation of the area.

That being said, I do think this rule is pretty unfair. Yes, I think the rule is smart but un-American at the same time. The town is essentially deciding which businesses can be established. Seriously, what's next....bars! This is Gilbert essentially putting it's official stamp that it's a Mormon town that stresses family values. There is no more argument regarding that. The Gilbert apologists need to stop trying to pretend the town is anything else. But like the Mayor said, it's for these reasons that people are attracted to Gilbert. I don't see any problem with that. You don't have to live in Gilbert if you don't like it. I chose to live in Chandler for a reason.

There are plenty of non-Mormon families like ours, who choose to live in Gilbert because it is more conservative, more family oriented, and safer. Not crime free, but safer that other areas.

So I agree the rule is smart and am happy for it.

[KK85297]

Yeah, I agree. I'm not a Mormon and I'm definitely not a Gilbert apologist...but I like this rule. They aren't disallowing these businesses, just regulating them- which I think is appropriate for a city like ours. Clean, safe, attractive for families...no one moves here to be within stone's throw of a liquor store or tattoo parlor. It's not as if you cannot find a place to get a tattoo within 20 miles of here (hello, Mesa! hello, Chandler!) and if you don't have the ability to transport yourself a few miles to find a place to get a skull inked onto your bicep, you probably should save your money and get a vehicle instead.

Un-American would be banning tattoos, fining or imprisoning the tattooed or setting fire to existing establishments...I don't think asking people to do something "over there" or at least "not so close to that other guy" is un-American. Having standards and a vision for your community is most definitely American- and sometimes that means regulating who does what where to a certain degree.

[azriverfan.]

Originally Posted by KK85297

Yeah, I agree. I'm not a Mormon and I'm definitely not a Gilbert apologist...but I like this rule. They aren't disallowing these businesses, just regulating them- which I think is appropriate for a city like ours. Clean, safe, attractive for families...no one moves here to be within stone's throw of a liquor store or tattoo parlor. It's not as if you cannot find a place to get a tattoo within 20 miles of here (hello, Mesa! hello, Chandler!) and if you don't have the ability to transport yourself a few miles to find a place to get a skull inked onto your bicep, you probably should save your money and get a vehicle instead.

Un-American would be banning tattoos, fining or imprisoning the tattooed or setting fire to existing establishments...I don't think asking people to do something "over there" or at least "not so close to that other guy" is un-American. Having standards and a vision for your community is most definitely American- and sometimes that means regulating who does what where to a certain degree.

I like the rule from a selfish perspective because it's obvious what this rule is designed to do. They don't want cheap run-down strip malls to exist in the same way you see in Mesa. In Mesa, these businesses will cluster into one strip mall and thus bring the area down by appealing to shady consumers. Pretty soon, nice establishments pull out and the area starts to decline.

And it is un-American. Regardless if you like the rule, there is no way you can argue it's fair. Would we be saying the same if this applied to clothing stores or restaurants? Mortons isn't allowed to build a restaurant because Black Angus is already in the area even there are open leases nearby? No, there would be an outrage but suddenly different rules are being applied because of the nature of their business. To me, that is a city casting judgement as to what types of businesses can be open.

[azriverfan.]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

There are plenty of non-Mormon families like ours, who choose to live in Gilbert because it is more conservative, more family oriented, and safer. Not crime free, but safer that other areas.

So I agree the rule is smart and am happy for it.

Yes, I agree but you also live there because you are aware it's a Mormon town and prefer the benefits that go along with that over the negatives. I know non-Mormons that live there too and they all admit they live in Glibert because it's Mormon. It's almost like brand name...Mormon = good schools, safety, cleanliness and that's why you live there.

I like those values too but the totalitarian aspects of the town disturb me and I would rather deal with a little more crime, a little less safety and perhaps slightly weaker schools living in Chandler if it means I don't have a Mormon oligarchy (Gilbert City Council) dictating how I should live. I don't want tattoo parlors and payday loan shops to congregate but I would rather the free market establish that rather than a government group make a law that prevents that.

And before someone accuses me of Mormon bashing, let me remind you, I'm an equal opportunity offender. I would be just as uncomfortable if a Catholic, Hindu, Jewish etc city council enacted laws in large part due to their beliefs. I have many friends that are conservative Mormons who avoid Gilbert because they too are uncomfortable with the city's imposition of their beliefs. They believe faith is a personal thing and shouldn't be imposed on others.

[grace07]

Well darn, I had hoped it was about tattoo studies ... something that might raise the age to prevent one's precious 18 yr old child from getting a 2 ft tattoo down the side of her back.

[KK85297]

Originally Posted by azriverfan.

I like the rule from a selfish perspective because it's obvious what this rule is designed to do. They don't want cheap run-down strip malls to exist in the same way you see in Mesa. In Mesa, these businesses will cluster into one strip mall and thus bring the area down by appealing to shady consumers. Pretty soon, nice establishments pull out and the area starts to decline.

And it is un-American. Regardless if you like the rule, there is no way you can argue it's fair. Would we be saying the same if this applied to clothing stores or restaurants? Mortons isn't allowed to build a restaurant because Black Angus is already in the area even there are open leases nearby? No, there would be an outrage but suddenly different rules are being applied because of the nature of their business. To me, that is a city casting judgement as to what types of businesses can be open.

Well, just to be argumentative, I will say that yes I would still think it was fair if a city wanted to prevent Morton's from landing next to a Black Angus (not that I consider them to be comparable, but I'll play along!). I think it makes sense to "diversify" retail within reason- in fact, I think I'll puke if I see another stupid bank branch or cell phone store pop up in a strip mall in Gilbert. Enough with the g-d'd banks and Verizon stores already!

Technically, cities cast all kinds of judgment as to what types of businesses can be open (or if they can be opened at all- in a residential-zoned area, for instance). When marijuana and prostitution are legal, then we can quibble about city zoning ordinances...but if we're going for free business and free enterprise, let's go all the way, no?

(and just to be clear, I'm not a hooker or a pot-user...just playing devil's advocate.)

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by azriverfan.

Yes, I agree but you also live there because you are aware it's a Mormon town and prefer the benefits that go along with that over the negatives. I know non-Mormons that live there too and they all admit they live in Glibert because it's Mormon. It's almost like brand name...Mormon = good schools, safety, cleanliness and that's why you live there.

I like those values too but the totalitarian aspects of the town disturb me and I would rather deal with a little more crime, a little less safety and perhaps slightly weaker schools living in Chandler if it means I don't have a Mormon oligarchy (Gilbert City Council) dictating how I should live. I don't want tattoo parlors and payday loan shops to congregate but I would rather the free market establish that rather than a government group make a law that prevents that.

And before someone accuses me of Mormon bashing, let me remind you, I'm an equal opportunity offender. I would be just as uncomfortable if a Catholic, Hindu, Jewish etc city council enacted laws in large part due to their beliefs. I have many friends that are conservative Mormons who avoid Gilbert because they too are uncomfortable with the city's imposition of their beliefs. They believe faith is a personal thing and shouldn't be imposed on others.

Not to be argumentative, but I'm not sure where you're coming from.

You agree with the restriction that the City Council has placed, while at the same time you accuse it of being a dictatorship, and run by a Mormon oligarchy. Then you imply that they (Mormons) are imposing their believes on others, yet you have no quarrel with Mormons.

All law makers have to abide by our constitution, and if something is not in violation of our constitutional rights, then it's something we have to live by, or protest, or vote the representatives out of office. That's the democratic process. This law is not a violation of constitutional rights.

• Controversial, Yes.
• Protective of the clean, safe environment that Gilbert residents want, Yes
• Violation of our rights, No.

The city council is far from a dictatorship that you imply it is, because the decisions are made by an elected body of town representatives, with input from all interested residents. Not every resident of Gilbert is Mormon, and the religion of the candidates is not discussed in their election campaign. I have no idea which council person is Mormon and which isn't, and could care less.

The decision was not unanimous. There was lots of discussion on the subject, with the mayor initially opposing it, and later agreeing. Same with one of the other council members.

Many businesses move into Gilbert because they want to be in a clean, safe, vibrant community. If that is also what residents want, then I believe the council made the right decision.

Gilbert is not the only city/town that has an anti-clustering law, and as Councilwoman Linda Abbott mentioned, other cities have passed anti-clustering laws too late.

Many businesses have no respect for their neighbors and can bring a neighborhood down pretty quickly by attracting the clientele that is profitable for them. And a clustering of these types of business can bring a neighborhood down and keep residents away from the main stream businesses in the complex. So what fills the void when the main steam businesses vacate?

Let's see; how about locating these shops in the Heritage district: a McDonalds, two tattoo shops, a payday loans, a pawn shop, a hookah shop, a Dos Gringos bar, an adult book store like they have in downtown Chandler, a strip club should fit in there nicely. and how about a massage parlor. The McDonalds wouldn't last because parents wouldn't take their kids there, so another bar should fit in there nicely.

Now how many tourists and residents would be willing to visit the Heritage district? How many new main stream businesses would be willing to move into Gilbert?

Dos Gringos opened one of their bars on Baseline at Greenfield in Mesa, just across the street from Gilbert and Val Vista Lakes community. At that location the buffer zone between baseline and the start of the residential complex of single family homes and apartments, is a shopping center with Basha's being the anchor.

When DG first moved in, they would crank the music volume up at 10pm. Cranking music up is a strategy of bar owners to get customers to drink more. It's just a well known marketing strategy, so to speak. The louder the music, the louder you have to talk, then the more excited you get, and that makes you want to drink more.

Now everyone's having fun and drinking more, and then the music gets even louder. The more you drink, the drunker you get, and then you start getting out of control. That is why CD has all of those security/bouncer people around, just itching to beat you up when you get drunk and out of control.

The music was so loud that the neighbors in the houses said it sounded like someone next door had their stereo up really loud; and they couldn't sleep.

Two residents went over to ask DG to turn the volume down. They were told by the manager to get lost, that they will play their music anyway they please. (Good neighbors, right).

They went back on another night, and this time they were told rather forcefully, with bouncers gathering around them, to get out and don't come back.

So they took their complaint to the Val Vista Lakes Board of Directors, and to the Mesa Police. It took about a month of db monitors, complaints from the VVL board; residents and police visits, for DG to finally realize that they could not keep up their practice of non respect for their neighbors who didn't want their loud music pounding in their ears all night.

(The neighbors position was: The bar can stay, but the loud music has to go.)

I was a board member at the time, and I went over to the complainants community one night to hear the noise first hand. It was unbelievable that this business would have such disrespect for their neighbors to have the music so loud that from around 1000 feet and through a shopping center buffer zone, that the music was so loud it was uncomfortable to me.

I'm not opposed to bars. I had visited DG's several times during the day for lunch and a beer prior to this complaint. After seeing how they disrespect their neighbors, I don't go there anymore.

[azriverfan.]

Originally Posted by KK85297

Well, just to be argumentative, I will say that yes I would still think it was fair if a city wanted to prevent Morton's from landing next to a Black Angus (not that I consider them to be comparable, but I'll play along!). I think it makes sense to "diversify" retail within reason- in fact, I think I'll puke if I see another stupid bank branch or cell phone store pop up in a strip mall in Gilbert. Enough with the g-d'd banks and Verizon stores already!

Technically, cities cast all kinds of judgment as to what types of businesses can be open (or if they can be opened at all- in a residential-zoned area, for instance). When marijuana and prostitution are legal, then we can quibble about city zoning ordinances...but if we're going for free business and free enterprise, let's go all the way, no?

(and just to be clear, I'm not a hooker or a pot-user...just playing devil's advocate.)

If several bank branches or cell phone stores are operating in an area there is obviously a demand for their services so who are you to say that they shouldn't exist? Shouldn't we allow the free market to decide these issues? I don't think we can compare restaurants, bank branches and cell phone chains to prostitution and drugs.

But from a practical standpoint, this is a pretty smart rule. Nonetheless, it reminds me of Singapore's arcane yet effective laws ie fining people for spitting and not flushing the toilet in public restrooms, caning people for graffitti. Ever been to Singapore?...It's one of the cleanest and safest countries in the world. If I could impose a law, it would be that all home owners in a particular city must have a college degree, that would also be a very effective law!