Slog

News & Arts

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

City See the Beautiful Parks You’ve Been Missing

Posted by Dominic Holden on Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 6:10 PM

The Mariners are trying to sharpen an obtuse lawsuit to block a Déjà Vu strip club from opening near Safeco Field. The baseball team and Safeco Field are claiming in briefs filed with King County Superior Court that a fenced parking lot, a busy street, a wide sidewalk, and the ball field itself each constitute a “park and open space use.” Under city law, strip clubs must be over 800 feet from a park—but the strip club would be about 400 feet away. The first "park" is the Mountains to Sound Greenway, an unfinished patchwork of trails, which the Mariners argue received parks funding and should provide “a bike and pedestrian trail network that will enable city kids to walk and bicycle safely.” Here’s what that safe area for kids—ahem, park for kids—looks like now:

View Larger Map

In other gloriously safe places for kids, the Mariners argue that Edgar Martinez Plaza, across the street from Safeco Field, is “attuned to passive recreation, such as people-watching, sightseeing, and photography.” Behold the park’s natural beauty:

View Larger Map

And below, you’ll see Safeco Plaza, which the Mariners say is a park "devoted to recreational, aesthetic and educational and cultural uses."

View Larger Map

But the attorney for Déjà Vu, Peter Buck, points out Safeco Field uses the sidewalk for runoff parking for charter buses. “It is hardly a park and open space use when the Mariners use it for overflow parking,” he says. “We think that from the record we can make a pretty compelling case that [these sites] are not permanently dedicated to public parks and recreational use.”

Of course, the Mariners aren’t pushing this because they love parks. The team is attempting to claim moral high ground over stripping. In its petition filed in December, the Mariners said Déjà Vu strip clubs have “adverse impacts repugnant to a family entertainment environment.” Good thing families don’t see that at Sluggers, or the drunken fans in the bleachers.

The Mariners' suit, which will reach a courtroom showdown in two weeks, is appealing a city decision in December to allow the strip club. Under city rules, strip clubs are banned within 800 feet of parks and community centers. But the city found that "Safeco Field is not regulated as a community center under the Land Use Code, nor do the stadium or its associated facilities qualify as ‘public parks and open space.’"

Comments (19) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Since when was Seattle all Jesusy and wholesome?

Posted by Baconcat on April 29, 2009 at 6:26 PM

How about a ban on unethical lawsuits? I think that is embarrassing for the Mariners and specifically, for the attorney tasked to fight on their behalf.

Posted by Timothy on April 29, 2009 at 6:44 PM

We all know the Mariners get whatever the fuck they want, right?

Posted by Bauhaus on April 29, 2009 at 6:54 PM

#1 -- The Mariners organization is very pro-families.

I don't see a problem with another strip club moving into the area, it's not like SoDo is the nicest part of town already.

Posted by Nic on April 29, 2009 at 6:58 PM

That the Mariners oppose it is good enough reason to support it.

Posted by Troy on April 29, 2009 at 6:59 PM

And the Cowgirl's American Saloon is more family-friendly than a Deja Vu?

Don't get me wrong: I'm all for bars. And I'm all for strip clubs to serve alcohol. I also think a booze serving strip club should able to be anywhere where a liquor license is allowed. Let the market decide. But for the M's to get all worked up over a dry strip club when they've got a whole bunch of slap and tickle bars within walking distance of Safeco just seems ridiculous to me.

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay on April 29, 2009 at 7:01 PM

This story, and the accompanying photos, is just plain hilarious entertainment. Thank you for this piece.

"dry strip club" versus "slap and tickle bars?"

Can someone clarify for me what the legal interlocks are for booze versus boobies here?

I've lived in several states, all with different laws, and have never understood how the presence of panties is related to the presence of pints.

Posted by Ackham on April 29, 2009 at 7:28 PM

If they call safeco field a park, then you can bring a firearm in. Sports stadiums are one of the few places where firearms are regulated. You get titties or guns, but you cant have it both ways. Oops I guess they forgot about that little tidbit.

Posted by meanie on April 29, 2009 at 7:44 PM

Ackham, while it has loosened up a little bit here in recent years, the general philosophy is you can have alcohol, or you can have fun, but you can't have both - especially if sex is involved.

There's a whole bureaucracy, complete with its own enforcement division, to make sure that no one is particularly satisfied with the situation. It's supposed to protect The Working Class from dissolution or something.

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay on April 29, 2009 at 8:12 PM

It is tempting, when you think about you being some rich asshole that can pay for some group of his peers to sit there and watch him walking around with his feathers puffed up.

Posted by guilder on April 29, 2009 at 8:22 PM

So, if Safeco Field is a public park, does that mean I can go cruising for a blow-job down on the playing field?

Posted by Straight-Identified Bi-Guy With A Kid Seat In His Car on April 29, 2009 at 8:23 PM

Peter Buck? Really? I guess the only logical step from REM is to go into law...

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball on April 29, 2009 at 9:06 PM

such an abuse of the courts - go for sanctions for the strip club

ball players might even get their rocks off, oh sorry, no touching ... wink, wink

in these joints fame and c notes talk big time

Posted by Ace on April 29, 2009 at 9:19 PM

The sports stadiums are "public" when it suits them, like when they want public tax monies to finance them, for instance -- and "private" when it suits them, like when it's time to pocket the revenues generated by ticket sales.

They're afraid the non-"family-friendly" environment generated by a strip club might negatively impact their bottom line, so they want the public courts to declare them a public park so they can invoke the public interest to defend their private profits. See how that works?

Posted by Adam Smith's Invisible Hand on April 29, 2009 at 9:25 PM

so, I suspect there are some on Mariner legal team that is merely trying to keep themselves on a job. It's not like anyone has money to hire a lawyer, for whatever the reason, so those bozos do have an incentive.

(p.s. DM, if with your connections, maybe if you could find out the strain of what those lawyers are smoking or eating, could you let us know?)

Posted by phenic on April 29, 2009 at 9:49 PM

@9 my dissolute eyes are widened & my mien humbled by the wisdom you unleash... unworthy i am, but thankful... ^..^

Posted by ridovem on April 30, 2009 at 12:24 AM

Ridovem, I have a Seattle restaurant review book from the 50's, when we REALLY had some stupid alcohol rules, that waxes elegant about how the liquor code helps the Blue Collar Types. It's really a hoot.

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay on April 30, 2009 at 6:47 AM

I guess I'm the only anti-strip club person on this site. I don't get the point of them--especially dry strip clubs. Brothels make much more sense.

Posted by jinushaun on April 30, 2009 at 8:20 AM

@18: Here's the thing. I'm not a fan of strip clubs myself. I've never been to one and have no particular inclination to go in the future. So I'm anti-going-to-strip-clubs for myself. But I'm not overly concerned with policing other people's lives, so I am very much willing to let others go to strip clubs if that's what they want to do with their time and money.

Posted by Greg on April 30, 2009 at 9:02 AM