Do I play Devil's Advocate? Possibly, subconsciously, I just do. The other day I found an article on the FB site of The Australian Sex Party which dispelled some myths about having a brothel in the neighbourhood, and I posted it onto my local community page. There has recently been a DA application for sex services premises, and the DA has just been rejected. As far as I can tell, the developer has complied with every regulation, crossed every 't' and dotted every 'i', but the application has still been rejected. In the ensuing comment thread, I expressed the view that this article might allay some of the fears raised by locals when the DA was first lodged, and that it was going to be interesting from a legal standpoint (I am a former law clerk), and it was always interesting to watch people twisting their pearls and weeping about the decline of Western civilisation. Anyhoo, a councillor for the local shire commented that although the article I had shared was interesting, it did not correspond with the objections raised by locals, and that he believed Council had been fair in their processing of the DA and the objections. He said the objections did not decry the lack of social values, and that before I pass judgement I should look at the letters, which were accessible via Council's website. I said I was referring to the general comments from the general public when the application was first lodged, but certainly I would check out Council's website.
I have checked Council's website. I have looked at the minutes of the meeting, and the notes re the DA, and the letters submitted in objection to the proposed business. And you know what? All I can say is a big, fat, fucking Pffffffft! You will correctly glean from that last sentence I have not changed my views, and stand by my original comments. People with businesses that neighbour the premises who feel they have genuine worries, are entitled to raise those concerns. I still think their concerns are groundless. Some worry about drunken patrons. Hello? The premises are right near a fucking pub! Are people only now worried about drunken patrons? People don't want their children to see it. Too bad, I say. People are concerned that it is not a good look for the town as you drive in from the northern end of the main street, to have a brothel. Uh, a brothel does not have glaring signage saying, 'Roots 'R' Us', or some such similar. It must be pointed out that the proposed premises are kind of diagonally opposite the club house of the local chapter of a motor cycle gang. I think that this might be just a tad more scary. Also, when one drives into town from the southern end, there is a pub advertising lingerie waitresses. As one continues driving, there are more pubs advertising lingerie waitresses. I personally find this tawdry, but I know it is also legal and I therefore merely do not frequent those premises. Which is the choice people have, ie stay the hell away from the place, if they do not approve of a proposed brothel. But the signs for the lingerie girls are 'out there', and a brothel is a discreet building. The pub nearest the proposed site does try to attract families, but the thing is, it's a pub. It's not a hospital, a school, a church, or a childcare centre. Some of these letters have comments about the owner not even being from town. Well, what in the blue fuck does this have to do with anything at all? It's insular NIMBY-ism at its most insidious. I really do stand by my original views, which is that people hear about consenting adults having sex, and just because there is a monetary transaction, dance on the table, holding up their skirts and shrieking, 'Eeeeeek!'
No comments:
Post a Comment