|
The Goldwater Institute asked me to attend this court case.
I wanted to but because of Maricopa County Sheriff Randall Carney threat that I would be arrested if I ever enter the Maricopa County Legal Complex again I did not even try to attend the case. Case to decide fate of tattoo parlor By:Derek Quizon Published On:Sunday, July 5, 2009 A Maricopa County Superior Court Judge will decide Monday whether or not a Mesa couple will be allowed to expand their tattoo business into North Tempe, near the intersection of Scottsdale Road and Weber Drive. The business owners, Tom and Elizabeth Preston, feel they are being unfairly targeted by the North Tempe Neighborhood Association, which appealed the city’s decision to grant them a land use permit in June of 2007 on the grounds that their shop could attract crime and lower property values. The case made its way to the city council, which voted unanimously to keep the Prestons’ tattoo parlor out of North Tempe. Association President Darlene Justus said the tattoo parlor, which is moving in next door to an adult bookstore and a bail bonds business, could create a clustering effect that drives down property values and keeps family-oriented businesses out. “Our concern is about having too many of the same type of business in the same place, which keeps other businesses from moving in,” Justus said. The clustering of adult-oriented businesses in that area, she said, has kept family-oriented businesses, including a pet shop and an ice cream parlor that closed this year, from thriving because people are afraid to take their families there. In May, a Maricopa Superior Court Judge overturned the decision, claiming the city had no right to grant a permit and take it away. But the city is appealing that ruling, saying neighbors should be allowed to appeal the granting of a land use permit. “The permit was only conditionally granted,” said City Attorney Andrew Ching. “[The neighbors] had 10-15 days to appeal the decision, and their appeals were timely.” But Carrie Sitren, a Goldwater Institute attorney representing the Prestons, said they are being targeted by nosy neighbors and the city council based on false assumptions. “It was really an arbitrary decision based on stereotypes,” Sitren said of the council’s unanimous ruling. “Stereotypes are not supposed to be a factor [in a council decision].” Sitren said the North Tempe Neighborhood Association initially objected to the tattoo parlor’s presence because of the perception that it could attract crime to the area, a stance it has since shied away from. “Perceptions have changed,” Sitren said. “[Having tattoos] is not taboo anymore.” Gary Olsen, a Tempe resident who works at a window and door company, went to city hall to see a hearing officer the same day the Prestons were there. Olsen said he was offended when he heard representatives of the North Tempe Neighborhood Association speak out against the tattoo parlor. Some of the representatives, including owners of neighboring businesses, said they were reluctant to hire people with tattoos. “I kind of took offense at the way they stereotyped people with tattoos,” Olsen said. “If I was a paying customer at their business, and they saw my tattoo, would they reject me? No, they would take my money.” Although the Superior Court ruled in their favor, the Prestons have not been able to proceed because the city is appealing the decision. Ching said the ruling sets a dangerous precedent because it does not give neighbors or the city the opportunity to appeal a decision to grant land use, essentially allowing any business to be established anywhere if it can get an initial approval from a hearing officer. It may also keep businesses that have been denied the permit from making appeals as well. “If an appeal is the same as a revocation, and the shoe is on the other foot, I’m not sure how a business can appeal a decision to deny the permit,” Ching said. The Prestons could not be reached for comment. Reach the reporter at derek.quizon@asu.edu
Tattoo-shop owners claim Tempe biased by Dianna M. Náñez - Jul. 9, 2009 12:00 AM The Arizona Republic Tattoos cover most of Tom Preston's forearm and curl around his neck. He is used to people judging him by the colored etchings on his skin. But as a taxpayer and business owner, he thought City Hall would be different. "You expect (elected officials) to be completely unbiased," he said after the latest episode in his two-year battle to open a tattoo and body-piercing studio in Tempe. Preston and his wife, Elizabeth, left Maricopa County Superior Court this week wondering how a few neighbors could sway Tempe City Council from allowing them to open a legal business. The legal battle began in fall 2007 when the Prestons sued Tempe for the right to open their studio after the city revoked their business permit. While Tempe says it was protecting neighbors' rights, Preston thinks the decision was based on tattoo stereotypes. "Policemen, teachers, firefighters, soldiers . . . have tattoos nowadays," Preston said. "This all just seems like . . . prejudice." The case has drawn the attention of the conservative, pro-business Goldwater Institute, which is defending the Prestons, and cities and businesses are watching to see who will win a struggle between free enterprise and a city's right to manage development. The appeal In 2007, the Prestons decided to expand their business. For about 13 years they had success with Virtual Reality tattoo studio in Mesa. A strip mall near McKellips and Scottsdale roads in north Tempe seemed like the perfect spot for Body Accents Tattoo and Piercing Studio. In July 2007, a hearing officer granted the Prestons a use permit. But members of the North Tempe Neighborhood Association objected and appealed to Tempe's Development Review Commission and then to the City Council. Neighbors said the tattoo parlor would lower property values and stymie revitalization attempts by adding to a cluster of adult-oriented businesses in the strip mall. The center already had a bail-bond business, a liquor store and a lingerie shop. Neighbors cited a New York study detailing the negative impact of adult-oriented businesses. "It's going to look like another skid row if we let this kind of business come in. I'm ashamed," said Nancy Hickman, who owns a plumbing business next to the proposed studio. "It's going to look like Van Buren (Street) pretty soon." The Prestons argued they had a reputable business and said their Mesa studio had no police complaints in 13 years. But Mayor Hugh Hallman said the "perception" of the tattoo business could hurt the neighborhood. The council unanimously agreed. Tempe officials have stressed that they are not discriminating against the Prestons and have pointed out that there are at least 12 tattoo studios in the city. The legal battle After Tempe revoked the Prestons' permit, the city enacted an anti-clustering ordinance, limiting the distance between adult-oriented businesses. Mesa, Peoria and Gilbert have similar ordinances. In May, Judge Robert Oberbillig ruled that Tempe improperly revoked the permit, ordering the council to review whether there is "sufficient evidence of good cause and public necessity" to revoke the permit. Tempe filed a motion asking the judge to reconsider, and he complied. Arguing Monday for the Prestons, Goldwater Institute attorney Clint Bolick said the couple had a legitimate business, invested nearly $30,000 to open it and had followed Tempe's rules. But Catherine Bowman, a Tempe attorney, said neighbors have the right to appeal a permit to the council. Permits are conditional, and the code warns that pending appeals, any investments business owners make are "at their own risk," she said. Oberbillig said from the bench that he was persuaded by Tempe's argument but he questioned the council's fairness. "There has to be some credible evidence for the city to base its decision. It's (got to be) more than somebody's opinion whether somebody who has a tattoo is offensive to them," he said. He said the case is a "close call" and is expected to rule this week. Outside the courtroom, Bolick pointed out that the retail space where the studio would have opened has remained vacant for two years. "They'd rather have an empty store than a legitimate business," he said. Darlene Justus of the North Tempe Neighborhood Association said members have not changed their position. "We've really gotten a bad rap on this," she said, "We have the legal right to fight a business we think could hurt our neighborhood. It's not about people with tattoos. My grandson has a tattoo. It's about not wanting another adult-oriented business in the neighborhood." Both sides said they would consider appeals if they lose.
Its nice to see a judge slap the Tempe tyrants in the face and tell them they are not Gods who can destroy the lives of anyone they consider inferior to themselfs! Couple win right to open Tempe tattoo club by Dianna M. Náñez - Jul. 9, 2009 02:21 PM The Arizona Republic A Maricopa County Superior Court judge has ruled in favor of a Gilbert couple's right to open a tattoo studio in Tempe, according to court documents. Goldwater Institute's Clint Bolick, who represents the Tom and Elizabeth Preston, said he received notice Thursday that Judge Robert Oberbillig ruled the Tempe City Council's decision in 2007 to revoke the Prestons business use permit was "arbitrary and capricious." The City Council had ruled unanimously to revoke the permit when neighbors near the proposed north Tempe location complained that the tattoo studio would add to a cluster of adult-oriented business already located in the strip mall. Neighbors worried a tattoo studio opening alongside a liquor store, lingerie shop and bail-bonds business would lower their property values and stymie attempts to revitalize their neighborhood. The Prestons said the city based its decision on stereotypes and allowed prejudice to cloud their judgment. City officials maintain they are not discriminating against the Prestons, pointing to at least 12 tattoo studios that operate in Tempe. Tempe officials maintained the council has the authority to protect neighbors' rights and manage development. The ruling is "absolute jubilation" for the Prestons, who invested nearly $30,000 to open the business in 2007, Bolick said. Oberbillig also ruled that Tempe is not immune from paying damages as the city had maintained. The Prestons plan to sue the city for damages to recover the money they invested in attempting to open the business, he added. Return to tempe.azcentral.com for more updates. |