Sexy Baristas, Illegal in Yakima. Wa.--Anatomical Benchmarks and Such

The Yakima Herald-Republic  is reporting on the misdemeanor citations going to trial against a local coffee shop and a barista who was cited after being caught attired in a G-string and , . . . well, . . . um, nothing else. This is local reporter Chris Bristol's story:

"[Municipal Court Judge Susan Woodward]  turned away a constitutional challenge to Yakima's 2009 indecent exposure ordinance and ordered the owner of Dream Girls coffee stand to prepare for trial.  JudgeWoodard said she's studied case law on the subject and, despite concerns the case could go far on appeal, is convinced the ordinance does not violate free speech protections accorded nude or erotic dancing.

'I don't see the similarities between serving coffee ... and erotic dancing,' she said.

Dream Girls owner Cheryl Clark is fighting the ordinance in Municipal Court. In January, she was cited for violating the ordinance after one of her baristas was caught wearing a G-string -- and nothing to cover it -- on the job. The barista was also cited.

In a pretrial hearing, defense attorneys for Clark and barista Alyssa Hernandez argued the city's ordinance is too vague and therefore unconstitutional because it invites arbitrary enforcement.  At issue are some of the definitions underlying aspects of the ordinance, particularly terms like G-strings, thongs, buttocks and a corresponding one-third coverage area that is required.

Clark's attorney, Pat True, lashed out at the City Council's decision to bolster an existing indecent ordinance last year as a 'direct attack' on coffee stands like Dream Girls.  He argued that a reasonable person would have trouble figuring out if their attire violated the law and wondered aloud why police are not sending 'thong patrols to swimming pools.'  The ordinance is too vague and 'absolutely leaves open the potential for arbitrary enforcement,' which is unconstitutional, he said [ . . . ]

Assistant City Attorney Jon Seitz told the court the city's ordinance mirrors a law in Daytona Beach, Fla., that has withstood challenge and that the one-third coverage area is based on precise 'anatomical benchmarks.  Just because it's complex doesn't mean it's vague,' he said."
______________________________
I guess this business model works if you're only serving decaf.

Charleston, SC to Crackdown on the Scourge of Illegally Parked Bicycles

The (Charleston, South Carolina) Post and Courier reports that the city law-givers are on the verge of issuing new ordinances cracking down on the scourge of illegally parked bicycles.  Apparently bicyclists have been documented locking these dangerous mechanical objects to almost anything, including: parking meters, street signs, trees, and light poles!   Certain city council persons have had enough.

Reporter David Slade explores this controversy in depth this is an excerpt from his investigation:

"Charleston could soon take a hard line against illegally parked bicycles, with proposed regulations that would allow the city to immobilize or seize bikes found locked to traffic signs, street trees and the like.

Just as a motorist might find their illegally parked car with one of the those big yellow "boots" attached to a wheel, rendering the vehicle useless until a fine is paid to remove the device, cyclists could find a city lock on their illegally parked bike until they pay a $45 fine.

A proposed Charleston city ordinance would prohibit locking bikes to parking meters and other public property on sidewalks, and violators could see their bikes confiscated until they pay a $45 fine. Bikes that appear abandoned, like this vandalized one that hasn't moved from Calhoun Street in months, could be seized and disposed of after seven days' notice.

City Council will consider the measure at a meeting scheduled to start at 5 p.m. today in City Hall.

'I think this probably goes a little bit too far in discouraging the use of bicycles, if it is enforced,' said Tom Bradford, director of the cycling advocacy group Charleston Moves.

'We pay so much attention to whether there is sufficient parking for cars, and at the same time, we want people to be more active,' he said. 'But if you make it very difficult to park a bicycle, then you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.'

The parking rules are part of a broader bicycle ordinance that would give the city authority to seize and dispose of abandoned bikes, would eliminate a widely ignored regulation that all bikes must have a one-dollar city license, and spells out when and where people can ride bikes on sidewalks. Generally, children 12 and younger could ride on sidewalks."
_____________________________
Charleston, South Carolina is one of the most beautiful cities I've ever seen.  The idea behind this ordinance seems pretty silly.  Maybe it's just the presentation, but the ordinance sure sounds like an invitation to the City becoming known as hostile and unfriendly to the very sorts of people I would think they would want to be warm and accommodating.