Body Rub Parlors are a Payne in the….
Yes, And the winner is… Hilary Payne henceforth known as Councillor massage,
Although there was outright stupidity abound Monday night, no one made more incorrect uninformed statements than Councillor Hilary Payne
Lets set ‘em up so I can shoot ‘em down. These are as close as my memory allows
1. The DWBIA is being hypocritical for opposing body rub parlors and not strip clubs. For treating one different than the other.
WRONG AND A STUPID STATEMENT
a. The DWBIA has no problem with the existing moratorium on strip club licences just as it does controls on new body rub parlors. There is nothing inconsistent.
b. Strip club controls were not before council this evening, how could Councillor Payne know what the DWBIA position is on additional controls if the issue has not come up for it to take a position.
2. This bylaw is trying to do directly what the city cannot do indirectly
RIDICULOUS ANSWER IS YES AND NO -
a. There is nothing wrong in a city to use all the tools it has at its disposal to accomplish what the electorate wants. It is why the city has different tools so that it can accomplish what it wants through different means, picking the best means to fit the circumstance and situation.
b. How can he assign motives to people. He claims our motives are to shut massage parlors down. How does he know that the motives are anything more than simply to remove them from Ouellette and Pelissier and in the close vicinity to a new proposed aquatic center
3. These are just small businesses that deserve a chance
WRONG-
a. We need to protect and leverage the tremendous investment that the taxpayer is making in our downtown through streetscape and
b. How dare he play fast and loose with the 10’s of millions in streetscape investment and a likely city center west investment. How callous is he to simply risk that investment for a body rub parlor
c. For every vacant space filled by a body rub parlor you get two vacancies, one on either side. which leads to ….
4. HOW CAN THE BIA Be against a particular business
Easy, we are entrusted with promoting and beautifying the area, both of which body rub parlors contradict.
The reason that Devonshire Mall and Windsor Crossing prohibit body rub parlors as tenants is because they know that most national chains do not locate in malls and plaza’s that contain these businesses. Sure downtown does not currently compete for national chains but YOU DON”T PLAN FOR THE PAST, YOU DON”T EVEN PLAN FOR THE PRESENT. YOU PLAN FOR THE FUTURE. We need to prepare for the day that we are trying to recruit the lululemons of the word
2. Successful downtowns are well managed downtowns, ones that manage their area’s just like a Devonshire mall or a WIndsor Crossing. Stop handcuffing those who would see our downtown managed responsibly
RUNNER UP for RIDICULOUS STATEMENT - Percy Hatfield. or
1. I wouldn’t even know where to find one.
What are you saying councillor, never strolled down Ouellette or Pelissier where 10’s of millions were spent on streetscaping. What kind of councillor has never walked down the mainstreet of a city in his two terms as councillor???? If you want to find one, call fellow Dipper Jack Layton, apparantly even he’s seen the inside of one.
I think that not knowing there was a massage parlor on Ouellette with flashing neon lights and carboard cut outs of lingere clad woman for 7 out of 8 years on council. A massage parlor on Pelissier right next to the bar where 6 windsor shootings took place, both locations we just spent 10 million on street scape is more hillarious than Pakistan saying they had no idea BinLaden was where he was
2. It won’t survive a legal challenge
WHat part of the statement that was repeated to you several times by several people did you not understand that Markham and Kitchener both successfuly fought legal challenges. Even when you were told this three times, you stuck to your guns and continued to argue this point. I’ve never seen someone stick to their guns in the face of facts to the contrary.
Remember Councillor 2 ears, 1 mouth, try listening more than you talk.
Post Feedback
Reason some of us in the DWBIA, (myself former chair) are so infuriated by what happened is even though the motion was eventually successful.
We waited patiently for 5 years while this bylaw was made to our quest for help in this matter. We wanted zoning changes, the mayor told me to my face 5 years ago “Wait mark, we have a better solution coming any time now”
After all that wait, 3 generations of BIA Boards, we finally get some action and we have to fight for it tooth and nail. We have it rejected by 4 councillors and finally one withdraws her vote. She doesn’t vote for us mind you, she only ceases to oppose.
We’re the 4th major city in Ontario to address this when we wanted to be first. We’re not breaking any ground here, this is old news to Markham, Kitchener (and I forget the third right now)
How the hell are we supposed to face the big challenges when we can’t even get support on items that are NO BRAINERS. That Councillors Payne, Gignac (she did half right at the end), Sleiman and Hatfield, know whats better for downtown than the vast majority of Residents and businesses that are there day in and day out. We’re talking about a bylaw that I’d bet 90% PLUS Support.
I guess our next Knock down drag out fight will be getting them to acknowledge sunshine, puppy dogs and rainbows are good things.
Thumbs down to Hatfield, Sleiman and Payne, (I guess Gignac gets a pass) as it is their arrogance that truly knows no bounds
BTW, kudo’s to Ron Balla, Interim DIrector Debi Croucher and the rest of the DWBIA and special thanks to John Clark. Angelo, Virginia, Larry. all showed up in solidarity.
I am very proud to have them represent my business and it is a shame that some councillors didn’t even do the bare amount of research such as calling one of them before making such factually incorrect statements.
REMEMBER, I”M NOT UPSET WITH THESE COUNCILLORS FOR DISAGREEING, , but to go out there and base your decision on wild accusations or premises without even doing the bare minimum research as to its accuracy is offensive and irresponsible as a councillor. Technically I don’t recall Councillor Sleiman making any incorrect statements, he just had a different opinion, that I get.
Talk about hypocracy, remember the DRIC legal fees how then council said that legal fees shouldn’t matter when doing the right thing. Ah, how they’ve changed
(I may be mixing up Mark with the DWBIA generally, but I’m assuming they share similar views.)
Hopefully there is agreement that the business that happens inside a building, while it stays inside, is of little interest to neighbouring businesses. It’s nice to achieve synergies, but in a city and a downtown, your neighbour could be almost anyone. That’s just the nature of it. I don’t see what prevents the city from ensuring all businesses are good neighbours, with general rules that apply to every business. I don’t see what is special about massage parlours (regardless of the nature of the massage) that requires extra steps. If there is something unique, that message isn’t getting out, at least to me. Do I need to go to one?
Some of the messaging that is getting out confuses me. DWBIA seems to be saying they don’t want massage parlours shut down, but they also don’t want them downtown. So that means they want them to move to other areas. But I have to be suspicious when someone tells me that a small business is OK for my area, but is so bad in their area that they have to be kept out. It makes me less likely to believe what they have to say. In this case, I believe the intent is to shut them down.
Also, something doesn’t fit with the improvement message. It seems likely that massage parlours are encouraged to have tinted or opaque doors and windows (both for privacy of the customers and to avoid disturbing the passing public) and yet the façade improvement program seems unavailable to businesses who intend to keep such doors and windows. It’s available to businesses with (or seeking to have) doors and windows that increase visibility of the interior. So I think that if massage parlours look ugly, DWBIA itself is at least partly responsible for that. Still, the business shown in the Star article appears to be one of the more visually inviting places on its block, although I can’t really see inside it, in the Star’s picture or on Google streetview. I can’t imagine that place driving its neighbours out of business. However I can understand the natural and predictable failure of what appears to be a former movie rental business next door. It’s the age of Netflix now, and even Blockbuster is having trouble.
Rather than targeting certain businesses because of the services provided, I’d like to see the city and DWBIA addressing the actual problems that are being claimed. Unfortunately from this post, and from the Star article, I can’t tell what the problems really are. The Star article cites “congregation and advertisement” but I’ve never noticed that near massage parlours when I’ve walked through downtown, and it’s not evident in the picture. Also, the presence of massage parlours hasn’t discouraged me from eating, seeing a movie or play, buying fresh vegetables or a ring, or whatever it was I was downtown to do. And I think it might be self-fulfilling… that if the mere presence of massage parlours is portrayed as not “family friendly”, such a statement itself is discouraging families from coming downtown. But I’m sure that the solution is not yet another mall. Malls get to micromanage things because they are not public spaces. A downtown should be more organic, more diverse, less managed than that. But what would make a significant difference right away is better parking (signage, availability, rates, cleanliness, etc.).
Last, given Windsor’s long history of enjoying freedoms denied in other places in our region, from rum-running to strip clubs, I think a handful of massage parlours are a reasonable fit into our downtown story.
And since the challenge was made: melanoma, toxocariasis, and chromatic aberration. But unicorns are OK.
“I can’t tell what the problems really are.”
Well Randy, its late at night but I’ll have a go.
When you have 3 or 4 girls from a body rub parlor standing out front on their smoke breaks its not something I want to walk by with my 5 year old son
The place that burned down on Ouellette had two large cutouts and bright signs in the windowfront. I don’t think thats appropriate on our mainstreet. even the new adult store knows where to draw the line and kudo’s to them.
“Also, the presence of massage parlours hasn’t discouraged me from eating, seeing a movie or play, buying fresh vegetables or a ring, or whatever it was I was downtown to do.”
Ah, but you are not the sole demographic of a downtown customer, This is about preparing the area for the future, not the past. If we do get an aquatic center we’re going to see a lot more families MAYBE. Do they come downtown before and after their visit or do they just drive in and drive out without stopping because they may not feel the area is family friendly.
But again i cite that National Chains have it in their leases that owners of plaza’s that they locate in are not allowed to rent to these types of businesses. Not only have they done this because they’ve studied the issue. Even if you still believe they are mistaken, until you convince them they’re wrong, you exclude them as possible future tenants.
” I think a handful of massage parlours are a reasonable fit into our downtown story.”
No disrespect but I say what the vast majority of residents and property owners should matter more than what one individual such as yourself thinks.