Beautifully stated. More power to you and all the Midland citizens who want to keep the city family-friendly. Anyone who's seen what happens to a city when sin businesses move in knows that you have good reason to fight.

Interestingly, almost all of the commetators on Jessica's Well fully support Councilman Dingus' initiative to legally zone such businesses out of profitability and keep Midland family-friendly.

Their main objection (and mine) is to the stated objective of law-enforcement (mis)using existing laws to harass such businesses in the absence of any currently existing laws.

From a legal perspective, keeping SOBs out has my full support (and that of nearly every single commetator on Jessica's Well). That's the whole point of Councilman Dingus' proposed ordinance! But there's a key term: "from a legal perspective".

Existing laws are meant to be enforced to achieve a specific objective, not perverted into the objectives of those who enforce them.

Texas has already seen the tragic results once before when law-enforcement adopted that mentality.

I'm so glad that there is an active campaign to keep SOBs out of Midland. *shudder*

Midland has a LOT going for it--and that would totally change the "feel" of the city.

Dawn, thanks for the encouragement. You correctly perceive that we're not deaing with an abstraction, but with a real situation that affects people's lives, and the literal health of a community.

And, finally, Mr. Freen (and this is my last response to your comments on the subject)...there ARE NO SOBs in Midland, so there has been no use or misuse of existing laws to harass such businesses. You can get as exercised as you wish over a quote or two that appears in the local newspaper, but, really, you're stretching your argument to the breaking point by hanging it on such flimsy evidence.

TulipGirl, your comment came in as I was making my last comment, but I'll add my thanks for your encouragement, as well. I'm happy to see that you still recall Midland's strengths, even though you've moved halfway around the world!

If there is no market for SOB's they won't be here. If there is ???? How many folk who oppose SOB's in Midalnd have been in one of the "Gentlemens" Clubs in Odessa or some other area when out of town on business.
I too don't really want this kind of business in Midland County. The way to make sure it is not here is to make sure there is no demand for it.
The fact is you can see things as bad or worse than what you might see in SOB on cable TV and that stuff is in our homes.

The fact is you can see things as bad or worse than what you might see in SOB on cable TV and that stuff is in our homes.

If it is, then it's a choice you've made to allow it.

It's not in my home.

But, your point is accurate...this is as much an issue of individual moral choices as it is legal wrangling.

First off, let me say that I hate to see any law being selectively enforced. If I remember correctly from your first post, that was the gist of what was being said by the high sheriffs.

If topless bars are the only ones affected by the laws that are passed by elected officials, that's one thing. That's a republic at it's finest, and I'm all for that.

If the deputies decide, though, that this law will only be enforced when the infraction occurs at a topless bar, that's another thing entirely, and I'm wholeheartedly against that. That is literally taking the law into your own hands, and who wants that?

None of that involves abdication of anyone's morals, either. That's why we have local government, and that's why we vote. Me, I'm a free-for-all, laissez-faire kind of guy, but I'm perfectly happy to listen to and abide by the rules of a majority that don't infringe on my basic rights. After all, I'm always free to move if I feel strongly enough about it, right?

First off, let me say that I hate to see any law being selectively enforced. If I remember correctly from your first post, that was the gist of what was being said by the high sheriffs.

No, Scott...that was not what I said, and that's not what the original newspaper article that gave rise to this topic said. There are no laws governing SOBs in Midland, and there are no SOBs in Midland. It's hard to selectively enforce a non-existent law against a non-existent business.

The argument is really arm-waving about what might come to pass IF such laws are passed and IF such businesses move to Midland.

"Painter's pretty well told them 'it's your money, but it's not going to work,'" said Schorre, who adds "We're going to be on you like ugly on a gorilla."

That's what I was referring to, not anything that you said, Eric. To me, that's a thinly veiled threat of selective enforcement, as detailed in the next paragraph:

SOBs would have to put up with a stiff police presence, like spot checks for minors inside the clubs. On top of that, Painter said he expects church groups would muster if an SOB opened up in Midland County

The writer of that should probably be fired for such poor paragraph construction (as well as the hideous pun that no one has caught). A community movement, such as a church-organized drive, should not be likened to an official governmental policy of a "stiff police presence."

But, to the point -- if the sheriff were to only have a stiff presence in topless bars, and every other bar in Midland does not have to deal with a stiff police presence, then that's bad police work.

My recollection is that Midland has bars, so I'm working with incomplete information here. If there aren't other bars in town, well, then -- never mind...my points are even more pointless than usual.

And as you say, it's a kerfluffle rigth now, but I can tell you this. Dallas has had a hell of a time clearing those things out as the city grows and changes. If I were a Midland voter, then I would want to be sure that the laws were on the books before the sheriff is forced into being extra-legal. That's never a good thing, IMHO.

Scott, however much disagreement there may be locally about who has the moral high ground and so on, I think there's unanimous agreement that addressing this potential problem after it's no longer potential is a bad mistake.