Washington City Councilman Jim Graham tosses beads to the crowd at last weekend’s Pride parade. Graham’s controversial “One-time Relocation of Licensees Displaced by the Ballpark Amendment Act,” which passed, has been criticized as having too many restrictions to be of practical use. Graham argued it at least gives some adult businesses “a fighting chance” to re-open. (Blade photo by Henry Linser)

By LOU CHIBBARO JR.
Jun 13 2007, 5:10 PM  |     |     |  

A bill to allow gay and straight adult entertainment businesses displaced by the new baseball stadium to reopen in new locations emerged from Washington City Council last week in such a weakened state that it is uncertain whether any of the clubs can survive, according to two prominent city nightlife advocates.

In a related development, the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs this week revoked the occupancy permit of one of the non-liquor serving adult gay clubs displaced by the stadium that reopened last month in a warehouse on West Virginia Ave., N.E.

The revocation order says Club 2120 is operating as a "sexually oriented" business in a zone that doesn't allow such businesses. It calls for the club to shut down by June 26 unless it complies with city zoning rules.

Skip Coburn, executive director of the D.C. Nightlife Association, formerly known as the Licensed Beverage Association, and gay nightlife advocate Mark Lee, proprietor of the local gay firm Atlas Events, said new restrictions added to the bill could prevent all but one or two of the six displaced clubs from finding a new location to reopen.-IMG-

“People in the industry say the restrictions are so daunting that all bets are off,” Lee said. “It may turn out that two will meet the restrictions. It may turn out that none will.”

Coburn said the bill, introduced by gay Councilmember Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), fell victim to what he called “sensationalism” in the mainstream news media and “highly exaggerated” charges that it would lead to the creation of a red light district in Ward 5, where the clubs had hoped to relocate in separate warehouse districts.

“What has gotten lost in the haze is that at least a dozen nude dance clubs remain open all over the city,” Coburn said. “Some are in the downtown business district but others are in neighborhoods where people live. Anyone who cares to take a look will see that none of the gloom and doom predicted by the critics has happened with these existing clubs.”

All of the clubs Coburn is referring to — including Camelot on M Street downtown and Good Guys on Wisconsin Avenue north of Georgetown — feature female strippers and cater to a straight clientele.

The restrictions added to the Graham bill cited by Lee and Coburn came from six amendments offered by Councilmember Harry Thomas (D-Ward 5), the Council’s lead opponent of the bill, the “One-time Relocation of Licensees Displaced by the Ballpark Amendment Act.”

Two of the restrictions prevent the displaced clubs, which offer nude dance entertainment, from locating within 1,200 feet from each other and from operating within 600 feet of a school, church, playground or area under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts. The commission, among other things, has jurisdiction over the Potomac River waterfront and the historic district in Georgetown. Another restriction allows only two of the six displaced clubs to reopen in any single ward.

Graham agreed to Thomas’s proposed changes as “friendly amendments,” saying he did not have the votes to secure passage of the bill without them.

Council voted 9-4 on June 5 to pass the amended bill in a “first reading” vote. A second and final vote on the bill is scheduled for July 10, when Council holds its next, full legislative session. Assuming Mayor Adrian Fenty signs the bill, it could not become law until it clears a required review by Congress, which is not expected until September or October.

Thomas announced at a Ward 5 community meeting last week that, at his request, the city’s Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs opened an investigation into one of the displaced adult gay businesses that has already opened in Ward 5.

Club 2120, which formerly operated in the O Street, S.E., gay club district as Glorious Health and Amusements, opened last month in a renovated warehouse at 2120 West Virginia Ave., N.E. Owner Bob Siegel has said his new club is operating within the law and is not dependent on the Graham’s club relocation bill because it isn’t a bar or nightclub and doesn’t serve alcohol.

But DCRA spokesperson Karyn-Siobhan Robinson said the department served Club 2120 on Tuesday with a notice of revocation of its certificate of occupancy for the club, which is scheduled to take effect June 26. She said the club has the right to appeal the revocation decision, but the revocation order would remain in effect during the appeal process, forcing Siegel to shut down the club.

Robinson said the revocation order was based on the department’s finding that Siegel stated on his application for a required certificate of occupancy that the warehouse building would be used as “office space.” Instead, Robinson said, department inspectors determined the building was being used as a “sexually oriented” business, which is not allowed under zoning regulations for that area.

Siegel could not be reached for comment by press time.

One source familiar with the investigation said Siegel maintains that his attorneys advised him the club is not a sexually oriented business, as defined under the zoning law. Siegel expects to correct what he considers a “technical mix-up” by changing the description of the use of his building on the occupancy permit from an “office,” which is what the previous owner reportedly listed the building as, to something else, such as a retail shop or social club, the source said.

Most of the other displaced clubs, including the gay strip clubs Secrets-Ziegfeld’s and Heat, operated as nightclubs serving alcohol while offering male nude dancers as entertainers. The D.C. Alcoholic Beverage Control Board ruled two months ago that the existing liquor law prevented those clubs from relocating in buildings the clubs found in Ward 5 warehouse districts.

Graham said his bill, while weakened by the Thomas amendments, still gives the clubs a “fighting chance” to survive.

Meanwhile, gay activists have said the flap over Siegel’s reopened club complicated efforts to pass the Graham bill because angry Ward 5 residents accused city regulators of allowing Siegel to “sneak” into their neighborhood without giving them a chance to raise objections.

Lee joined gay activists in expressing disappointment over Graham’s decision to accept Thomas’s amendments without a fight. Even if Graham did not have the votes to defeat them, he should have forced the other Council members to take a stand by voting on them, Lee said.

“But the blame should not be placed at Jim Graham’s door,” Lee said. “It was the whole Council that turned its back on their previous commitment to help these clubs stay in business.”

Coburn called a provision in one of Thomas’s amendments that authorizes the clubs to relocate within 2,000 feet of the new stadium, near where they were displaced, a “hollow promise.”

According to Coburn, already approved redevelopment plans for all land within 2,000 feet of the new stadium include numerous residential buildings.

“There is simply no place they can find that will be greater than 600 feet from a residential structure,” Coburn said.

“I feel very much betrayed,” said veteran D.C. gay activist Frank Kameny. “We got something out of this. It may be that some of these clubs will survive,” he said.

“But fundamen

Permalink