So I spent two hours at City Hall yesterday watching strippers testify about the city’s proposed new regulations (a “four-foot rule” that would effectively outlaw lap dances; a rule mandating what one woman described as “cafeteria lightingâ€� in strip clubs, and another that would bar strippers from taking tips directly), and while I remain unconvinced that strip clubs are - as one dancer put it - unequivocally harmless, “relaxing entertainment,” I still think the new regulations are needless harassment of a single, legal industry. (A “temporaryâ€� moratorium, in place since the late `80s, prohibits new strip clubs in the city.) By bringing Seattle in line with suburban cities, the new rules will eliminate any incentive to open strip clubs in Seattle - and may put some of the four remaining clubs out of business.

But that, of course, is exactly the point. The Seattle City Council doesn’t want strip clubs inside city limits. More to the point, they don’t want to have a debate about the ban, because coming out against it would mean coming out in favor of the sex industry - and, in the wake of Strippergate, nobody wants to do that. Especially in an election year.

For years, no one had to. But then, earlier this year, former comedy-club owner Bob Davis challenged the moratorium in court, charging that it amounts to an illegal de facto ban on a legal business. If he wins, the moratorium will be lifted, and strip clubs will again be allowed in Seattle.

The actual problem, if the city council wished to deal with it, is this: Because there haven't been any new strip clubs in nearly two decades, there are no laws regulating where they can go. (Most cities confine strip clubs to nonresidential areas through zoning regulations.) A debate over such laws would undoubtedly stir up the same old emotional arguments about crime, prostitution, and drug use ("Think of the children!") as the controversial parking-lot rezone that led to Strippergate two years ago. So instead of going through that painful debate, the City Council is opting to put an economic chokehold on Seattle's four remaining strip clubs.

As strip-club attorney Gil Levy put it in his letter to the council:

The public needs to be aware that the proposed Ordinance is nothing more than a cynical effort to avoid adopting a comprehensive land use policy with respect to adult entertainment. It is much more than a coincidence that this regulatory ordinance is being proposed at the same time as another individual has filed a lawsuit challenging the adult entertainment moratorium. If his lawsuit is successful, it will require the Mayor's Office and the Council to undertake the potentially unpopular task of adopting a zoning ordinance for adult nightclubs. Rather than run the risk of offending some neighborhood constituenc[ies] by the enactment of a zoning ordinance, the Council is considering adoption of a regulatory ordinance, which will have the effect of closing existing business[es].

The really interesting thing is that none of the city council members I've talked to have any strong feelings about strip clubs per se. (Nor, it seems, does the public: Just one person, a woman who lives near Rick's, showed up to testify in favor of the rules.) They just want the issue to go away. And it will — on Monday, when the council will almost certainly take a unanimous vote to pass the expedited legislation.