More from ‘Sexpresso’ hearing

Brynn writes:

When writing a meeting on deadline for the next day’s paper you don’t always get the chance to include everything you want in a story because of time and space constraints.

That was the case last night as I tried to write a story on the Planning Commission public hearing regarding “sexpresso” coffee stands.

With roughly 30 people testifying, not every comment made it in the story. Many of the speakers repeated those that went before them, so I summarized the concerns.

I wanted to follow up today with more quotes from last night’s meeting so those who weren’t there could get a feel of what was said.

But first a little background on the “sexpresso” stands in Kitsap. In February 2010 I wrote about whether Kitsap County commissioners would follow the direction of city of Bremerton leaders and Mason and Snohomish county commissioners and implement a lewd-conduct ordinance.

In Snohomish after a handful of baristas faced prostitution charges, the commissioners voted to strengthen the county’s lewd-conduct ordinance. Their revised ordinance requires baristas to at least wear bikinis.

At the time Kitsap County commissioners stayed out of the debate on the grounds that no laws were being violated and there wasn’t much they could do.

“We have a lot of priorities right now and this isn’t one of them,” Commissioner Josh Brown said at the time. “Counties don’t have the regulatory authority that cities do. We can’t exactly restrict the businesses that are coming into our county like cities can.”

By April 2011 the board changed its position largely because the stands, previously clustered in the commercial area of Gorst, spread to more residential areas like East Bremerton. Causing a greater cause for concern, Brown said in April.

And while the earlier sexpresso stands only promised pasties a couple times a week, the trend was moving to wearing them every day. This change prompted commissioners to ask Department of Community Develop director Larry Keeton to look into the county’s options for regulating clothing inside the businesses.

It should be noted that one of the stands along Highway 303 does not have baristas in pasties but instead bikinis, according to the owner. It should also be noted the stand along 303 near its intersection with Riddell Road has been removed. That leaves Fantasy Espresso along Highway 303 and Espresso Gone Crazy and Espresso Gone Crazy II in Gorst as the stands promoting women in pasties.

In his presentation before the Planning Commission Tuesday, Keeton said his department didn’t have a recommendation for what planners felt was the best solution. Instead he wanted public comment to guide the commission.

All but six people that testified supported the county’s proposal to create a lewd conduct ordinance that would regulate clothing in public places. This includes places like public beaches, parks or lakes.

That means people wearing skimpy swimsuits could face a civil penalty if someone calls 911 to report what they think is a violation the lewd conduct ordinance.

Two people said they preferred an option that would designate the stands as adult entertainment and require someone to check identification to make sure customers are at least 18 years old. This option would also require businesses to clearly mark that they are adult entertainment, and require them to remove female silhouettes from signs.

Finally there were four people that opposed regulations altogether. That included two attorneys representing two espresso stand owners; one man who supports the stands and what they offer; and another man who said he didn’t necessarily support the stands, but felt the county was overstepping it’s role by regulating a moral issue.

After the hearing attorneys Kenneth Bagwell and Philip Havers said their clients continue to cooperate with the county and respond to requests to put up screening to prevent inadvertent viewing of women in the stands from the road.

Havers told planning commissioners his clients were willing to put up additional screening.

If the stands are blocked from the road, Havers didn’t think a lewd conduct ordinance could be enforced because people would have to go out of their way to see what happens inside the business, he said after the hearing.

That’s a question to be debated between attorneys, Keeton said.

As stated in today’s article, the majority of those testifying Tuesday were women. Of those, most were mothers. Many cited concerns about children being inadvertently exposed to the stands, and the impression the stands leave on young boys.

They also cited concerns that the stands would incite aggressive sexual tendencies in sex offenders and possibly cause some boys and men to become sexually aggressive. They are worried sexual violence toward women will escalate as a result of the stands because men will see women as sexual objects and not respect them.

I’ve included some of the comments from the hearing below. (Note: I wasn’t able to get everyone’s name spelled correctly, so I am not including names because I don’t want to get them wrong.)

One woman said:

“Men and boys are very visual. A little glimpse will be with them all day long,” she said. “It could start off with curiosity, then it could go from there when that’s not enough.”

Another woman said:

“There’s enough immorality, enough killings, enough rapes going on,” she said. “When women expose themselves like that, that opens the doors.”

Here’s comments from the man who questioned regulating a moral issue:

“I see people here telling other people how to live,” he said. “I’m 72 years old, I’ll save me. I’ll be responsible for my own actions.”

(It should be noted he said he has never visited one of the stands and has no financial interest in the stands).

Attorney Bagwell also questioned if the county was overstepping its bounds with the proposed regulations:

“Ultimately you can’t infringe upon the rights of others to conduct business because of the morality of some people,” he said.

Planning commissioners closed the public comment period Tuesday, but left the record open for written comments. Next county planners will compile the testimony while a county attorney will review a memorandum from the espresso stand attorneys sent last week. The document references case law that the attorneys say make the proposed options legally invalid.

Planning commissioners could deliberate and make a recommendation at their Aug. 16 meeting. The recommendation would go to county commissioners for review. Once the board of commissioners receives the proposed recommendation, another public hearing will be held before the board makes a decision.

5 thoughts on “More from ‘Sexpresso’ hearing

  1. I have been to an upscale strip club (with all female strippers) in Las Vegas with a co-ed group of friends. It was an adult blast. All of the girls were fun, well spoken and beautiful. I got some great skin softening tips out of it. In the right context with enforceable practical rules in place for the protection of minors and those who do not want to be exposed to it, it’s basically free speech adult entertainment. People can choose to engage in it or not. Lack of morality should not be infringed upon the moral, just as morality should not be infringed on those who chose to practice a lack of it.

    What we have here in Kitsap is Sexpresso stands engaging in the same free speech adult entertainment, all be it in a cheapest bargain basement manner possible, with no enforceable practical rules in place for the protection of minors and those who do not want to be exposed to it. If you are going to have the industry plying its trade on street corners then it needs to have the rules and protections that go along with that trade. Is anyone making sure L&I rates are not going up because of the exposure to on the job injuries that may or may not have happened with the protection of clothing? What about police calls to these places for harassment? Are we spending more time and calls on this section of the coffee industry than fully clothed stands?

    The County Commissioners need to stop kicking the can (pun intended) down the road. THIS IS adult entertainment. It needs laws in place that constitute it as adult entertainment and it needs all of the adult entertainment rules.

    Sexpresso stand owners, need to stop trying to have it both ways by calling a spade a spade and admit straight up this is adult entertainment that they are selling and engaging in and start implementing and enforcing rules that protect minors and does not expose (pun also intended) the service they are providing to those who do not want to be exposed to it.

  2. What’s this about causing men/children growing up to be more aggressive towards women etc etc. ? Really? How about these concerned mothers hold themselves accountable for the actions of their children? If they are going to regulate how much of a breast or buttocks can be exposed then let’s include the topside cleavage as well. No more low cut tank tops, no more yoga pants, no more spaghetti strap tops, no more ‘form fitting’ sweaters, no more heels that accentuate the buttocks, no more exposed bra straps, no more makeup, no more hair salons, no more tanning… Just because I see the entire roundness of a breast or the lower crease of a butt doesn’t make me any more excited than seeing a girl at the gym stretching in her tight workout gear or seeing a girl lay in a bikini on a beach or at the pool.
    Making a law or ‘ordinace’ for these things is such a waste if community resources. Plain and simple if you don’t like it, don’t go. I’m a guy and every time I pass by one of these places I always try to look in but I can barely make anything out. They do a pretty good job of putting up tinting and blinder fences.
    Seems to me that this war against these espresso stands is driven by envy. Turn on channel 13 (which is free over the air still) and you will see and hear plenty of things that are far worse than seeing a good looking girl for a sliver of a second as you pass by.

  3. Why is everyone harping on this saying it’s “regulating morality?” It’s not about regulating morality, it’s about protecting the portion of the public from having to be exposed to nearly naked girls hanging out the window to serve coffee. The stands put up a 6 foot section of fence which, if you know anything about geometry, will protect a person from seeing this sort of behavior if you are standing directly in front of fence section. The further you go out from that fence, the view opens up exponentially.

    The stand on 303 is on an uphill parking lot. Their fence is even more useless.

    The stand at the 76 gas station at Riddell Rd, which was open as of last week (the gas station closed), was offering up views with your fill up until the station closed.

    If you want to place your nearly naked espresso stand well off the roadway so people like I don’t have to avert my eyes everytime I drive by, great. Have at it. If you want to serve coffee only on the non-roadway side, fine. I shouldn’t have to worry about my family, kids, relatives here to visit, from catching a naked girl show just because I have to drive through Gorst to get from central to south Kitsap.

    It’s not regulating morality, it’s removing this type of display from the PUBLIC.

  4. First of all, why are county commissioners wasting my hard earned money on something that 15 women at most are doing to be able to work? And in reply to what Rob Scott said; why, if you are driving by, are you averting your eyes. Keep your eyes on the *bleep* road. If you don’t like what these stands are doing, don’t look. Yes, the Fantasy stand in east bremerton may be a little distracting at times as people drive by and is close to residential areas, but still. People driving by should keep their eyes on the road.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Before you post, please complete the prompt below.

Please enter the word MILK here: