...Must calm down. Damn, this acupuncture treatment.

What Is 175471?
October 6, 2003

It looks like an innocuous 6 digit number.  But it has the LA strip club industry, dancers, employees, and even customers, quaking in their boots.  That number is the LA City Ordinance 175471, the so-called "anti-lap dance" ordinance.  There's been a lot of talk on this website, especially on the bulletin board, about this ordinance.  However, many people have not actually read the entire text of the ordinance.  As a public service, I've done just that and will clear up some questions, and perhaps raise new ones, at this time.  Let me remind everyone that I'm not a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV.

Basically, the ordinance is separated into 3 areas of interest to the industry: Penalty, definitions and new regulations.

Let's analyze the section which deals with the penalty.  That's what's sometimes called the "teeth of the ordinance," or what's supposed to be the abatement.   My understanding is that the city can civilly sue the club for $2,500 for each offense, and charge people with a misdemeanor and fine them for $1,000 and maximum 6 month jail time or an infraction (a ticket) for $250 for each violation.  This is very similar to the way topless clubs operate with the ABC, where the club can be fined, including losing their permit, and the person who violated the ordinance can be given a ticket.  For example, a waitress and bartender can be given a ticket for over-serving a customer.

It's not clear to me if this would mean the customer would be given a ticket for getting closer than 6' from a dancer, but in practice, I think it's more likely that they will go after the dancer and club.

Let's now analyze the area that defines the terms regarding adult entertainment.  The ordinance defines an employee, which includes independent contractors, even if they are not "paid compensation".  This closes possibilities of loop-holes where a club could claim that their dancers are not employees.  The dancer is given the label of entertainer, who is different from an employee because she "engages in a live performance."  The customer is a patron, and anybody that's not an employee is a patron.  However, there is a distinction made about deliverymen and repairmen specifically not being patrons or employees.  This may mean that a repairman could get a lap dance without getting busted.  Or not.

The last area of interest, and the most talked about, are the new regulations. As discussed previously, the permits are now a little harder to get, and they only last one year, and so must be renewed yearly.  This makes it easier for the city to close down a club at the end of the yearly term of the permit.

If anybody had the bright idea that maybe bikini clubs (which are currently not considered as "adult") would be exempt, forget it.  In fact, the definition includes bikinis, lingerie, pasties and g-strings, so not being nude will have no effect on this ordinance.

The only time the dancer can "perform" is on a stage, and must be 6' away from the customer, and the stage must have fixed rails at least 30 inches high.  The club cannot be pitch dark (must be 2 foot-candles or more everywhere), and cannot have VIP areas or beds, and must have bonded uniformed security guards, and cannot give away, or sell condoms.  In fact, forget VIP areas, there cannot even be "partitions of any kind, including drapes."  Damn.  The only place that can be "obstructed" are the restrooms.  Thank goodness they let you piss privately.  They don't exclude dressing rooms here, so I guess the dancers will have to change out in the open.

If anybody thought of a loop-hole where customers could be temporary employees and get high mileage lap dances from dancers, forget it.  Employees cannot "touch, caress, or fondle the clothed or unclothed breasts, buttocks, anus or genitals" of a dancer, and vice versa.  But employees could get air-dances.  This does leave open a small possibility of a loop-hole.  Employees must "render any services directly related to the operation of the business," which would include wrestling with a dancer on stage.  By their definition, the employee does not have to be compensated.  So a customer could become a temporary employee by becoming an entertainer.  He still couldn't get a great lap dance, but at least he doesn't have to be 6' away from the dancer.

As for the dancer, she must always be at least 6' away from customers and she cannot touch and customer, and vice versa, receive tips, or have sexual intercourse.  I find this very interesting that they think that even if you are 6' away, somehow the customer will find a way to have sex with the dancer.  If I could have sex with a dancer 6' away, past a 30 inch railing, I could be in a circus side-show or be a porno actor.

Here we have yet another possible small loop-hole with tipping.  Even though customers cannot tip dancers directly, it says nothing about other customers tipping other employees, and employees tipping dancers.  Therefore, it will probably become customary to give the tip to a waitress, or a floater, who will then give the tip to the dancer for you.  In Westminster, where a similar ordinance is (or was) in effect, the customer was required to place the tip on a tray, which was being walked around by another person, like in church.  Just like it's wrong to tip the priests directly, now, so too are the dancers.

Of course, the deal-breaker wording in this ordinance is "At all times," when referring to the dancer being 6' away.  If it wasn't for those 3 words, the dancer could do air-dances, as long as she didn't touch the customer.  But with those 3 words, she cannot even serve him a drink, sit with a customer, or even shake hands.

After examining the entire ordinance, there's another small crack (pun intended) in the ordinance.  It's in the fact that there is a distinction made between entertainers and employees.  The entertainers (dancers) cannot have any physical contact with customers.  However, employees (non-dancers) are not allowed to have sexual physical contact with customers, which is not as strict.  This means the waitress cannot touch or allow to be touched in her private areas, including her breasts, but she could give an air-dance to a customer, as long as she was careful not to touch his "pubic region."  Would this make the waitress an entertainer?  The definition of an entertainer is that she "engages in a live performance," but with an "emphasis on the exposure of the genitals or buttocks... or the breasts."  So the answer might be, no.

So in this new-strip club-order, will the clubs have nude dancers on stage (who must stay very far away from customers at all times), but with waitresses giving air-dances to customers?  Possibly.  And since the dancers cannot receive tips, maybe the waitress would tip the dancer from her air-dance money to keep the entertainers happy.  Waitresses tipping the dancers.  Maybe the dancers should start being nice to the waitresses now.

Women and Children First
September 27, 2003

A Joint Editorial From Z Bone and Private Dancer Magazine

The sky is falling.

Or so it would seem, if you go by the number of phone calls and email we've been receiving from dancers and customers who are on the edge of their seats about the recent ordinance that will all but ban lap dancing.  Dancers are jumping ship and moving out of the city, and customers are afraid of going to jail.  Everyone has their panties or g-strings as it were - in a twist.

But, stop!  Don't panic!  As Gubernatorial candidate Schwarzenegger would say, "Calm down."

Don't get us wrong.  This ordinance is very serious, and could change the lives of many people in the industry.  But we need to get the facts straight.

First of all, the ordinance has not yet taken effect. It has been passed by the City Council, and Mayor Hahn has just signed it.  Now, there will be at least 30 days for the ordinance to go into effect after it is published in a local adjudicated publication.

In the mean time, club owners are coming together to pool their resources and fight this ordinance.  What exactly they will do has not been made public, but we can all be sure that when millions of dollars are at stake the owners are not going to stand by and watch their businesses sink.  If the proposed tactics of the owners work, it will delay the ordinance from taking effect for a couple years.

Furthermore, not all clubs are affected by this ordinance. Only clubs in the City of Los Angeles, not the County, are affected.  Moreover, while it's not entirely clear, we do not think the ordinance will result in the arrest of customers for any violations.  When dancers violate the six-foot rule in topless clubs, the club is cited for a violation, but nothing happens to the dancers or to any customers that get too close to the dancers.

At the end of the day, will the owners prevail?  That's the million dollar question.  In other parts of the country, similar ordinances have been drafted and voted on.  In some of the cases, the courts struck down the laws completely, while in others, parts of the ordinance had to be revised.  Some have passed all challenges, and still others are currently in litigation.

One thing is certain.  If everyone panics and stops going to and working at strip clubs in Los Angeles, there will be no need to fight any ordinance, because all the clubs will be closed due to lack of business.  We're not saying that everyone should go down with the ship.  Yes, the ship has hit an iceberg, but we are not taking on water yet.  Not even close.

Some of you reading this are thinking, "Well, the clubs brought this on themselves by going too far with crazy lap dances." This may be true, and it's too bad a few bad apples have ruined the entire batch.  But let's not add to the problem by panicking.

Listen to Arnold. Calm down.