Behind the Boobs

The Owner of Jiggles Strip Club Is Overturning Prudish City Rules One Lawsuit at a Time—While Making a Tidy Profit


"It's pretty clear—you either meet it or you don't." Jiggles is located across the street from the University Child Development School and within 800 feet of a YMCA, a community center, and a public park."

So, he can't move his club? Seems to me that there are plenty of club owners who have had to move/close their clubs for one reason or another. Why is he so special?

All he's saying is that the laws are stupid. Try seeing how well that holds up in court.

The question isn't whether there's been any harm done as he states at the end of the article. The question is why is he allowed to skirt the law when others haven't? He's hardly a victim here.
Did ya read the article jenn976? I thought he was a fool when he opened Jiggles, but he's done his homework. Vancouver and Portland have a lot of clubs. Seattle has almost none because the city and a couple of 'families' colluded to keep others out. These rules and the ridiculous rules on beer gardens are way overdue for an overhaul, and I thought McGinn would start working on modernizing this clown town.
I don't see the harm in a strip club being near a school. The people going in to a club want to see adult women dancing. What does that have to do with children? If they were pedophiles, they wouldn't be interested in an adult club, they would just hang out at the school.
He's done is homework? Then why did this idiot open a club across the street from a children's facility? If he had done his homework he would be moving his club right now rather than complaining about the laws. Does he think he's above the law and these rules don't apply to him? Did YOU read the article, Biff?
nice job Davis, inspiring story, best of luck in court. As a Non-UW-Student-Resident of the Roosevelt neighborhood (and as someone who doesn't frequent strip clubs) I support you!
this story just inspired me to go to PDX next weekend and have a beer while staring at some titties
Maybe we should all take a deep breath and read the article. He applied for a license to open a club where Cindy's is. The city ignored it. He sued and won a requirement that the city act on license applications within 30 days. So after granting him a license (As required by court order), the city invented its 800-foot rule. In case you haven't noticed, there is no place in Seattle that is not within 800 feet of a "school" as defined by the city. So he is saying that, since his license would have been effective in 2007 had the city acted legally, he can open a business where he could have in 2007.
@1 and 4, I don't know what universe you live in. He has a licenses, you numbnuts. Also, there's a lot of work required to move a business, and he has a lease. Also, as Ballard Pimp writes, the City should be reviewing and processing applications to avoid the problem.
@6 Hey thats my plan too! Sassy's here I come
Just curious - has he opened a strip club 2 blocks from his house?
@1 & 4 I'm sure you're right, this "idiot" that has collected almost $1mil in damages from lawsuits probably just figured that because he's "special" he'll be able to open a strip club wherever he chooses. Without any prior investigation as to whether or not his case will hold up in court. Makes sense.
Sassy's is the Jam
@10 does it matter?
My kids goes to UCDS, the school in question. Yes, I can see the sign right from the playground at 5pm when I go pick her up. Yes, I'm a diehard liberal. Yes, I've been to strip clubs in my younger days. No, I don't know where I stand on this yet.

@biffp: Yes, that is confusing. He can get a license because strip clubs are allowed per his earlier lawsuit that the city can't ban strip clubs. But the zoning law on the book said he can't open it within 800 ft. That's the rule the city is trying to enforce and that Davis is challenging.

This Davis guy seems to me as the Tim Eyman of strip clubs Yes, Eyman has rights to file as many referendums as he likes. But Eyman is kidnapping the referendum process for his *personal* gain, and Davis is doing the same with adult entertainment laws.

In both cases, I'd say that the law has to be revised to better weed out these misuse. But law are rarely perfect, and in a way we just need this to run its course in the courts. I just hope he doesn't steal more of the rapidly diminishing city budget in a judgment.
I have become inspired! I thought that I had long outgrown the nudie bar scene. After reading this I'm going to go pay some nice dancers tuition and get some dances while I watch boobs! Boobs Rule!
Why is Washington Broke? Puritan morals and the wolf cry "For the Children"... Nanny state begone! Adults here, we don't need you.
support single mothers , go to a strip club today !
Ok folks... This is the only time that I will comment officially on this thread. (By officially I mean I am speaking as an employee of the gentlemans club in question. One who's views and/or opinions do not necessarily reflect those of its management, and/or ownership.) As stated in the article... our Adult Cabaret License has been active since 2007. Which means it pre-dates the 800ft zoning ordinance that took effect later on that same year. So whether you support us or not is immaterial. Our club is protected by the grandfather laws... This is the reason why we were allowed to open, and this is also the reason why we will be allowed to stay open. Despite the best efforts of the powers that be of the great city of Seattle.

In response to twitch who stated "Just curious - has he opened a strip club 2 blocks from his house?" No. To answer your question... he hasn't. However, knowing him as I do, he would probably open one up in his house if he thought he could get away with it and it would turn a profit.

As far as the school accross the street is concerned. I agree that it could be considered in poor taste to opperate a strip club in such close proximity to an elemtentary school. However I feel the point is mute considering we are not open while the school is "in session" so to speak. There is no flashy signage on the outside of the building depicting a fifteen foot tall semi nude model in a referees outfit across the street from say... a baseball stadium. I seem to remember a similar gripe being made about the opening of Dreamgirls in SODO.

All that having been said... allow me to close with this. Its probably safe to say that most if not all of you have never been inside of Jiggles. Before you make baseless claims from the comfort of your laptop, while you watch a Sarah Palin speech on Fox News. I encourage you to give us a try.

Thanks for your time.
LPF, it's fascinating that you state your viewpoints somewhat articulately and from a legal perspective, and then take a shot with those who might disagree with you with the "Sarah Palin speech on Fox News" comment. (I say somehwhat articulately because "close proximity" is redundant, the point would be "moot", not "mute", and you use sentence fragments. While you might make your "claims from the comfort of your laptop", I think it's safe to say you haven't been inside a university classroom.

You're right about one thing though: I have never been inside Jiggles. If I want to see a great pair of (natural)tits, I can look in the mirror any time I want. I have no need or desire to come into your club to see others'.

I'm sure you must be proud to work for a man who is approaching the million dollar mark in funds from cash strapped cities.

@LPF, I am glad that you too "agree that it could be considered in poor taste to opperate a strip club in such close proximity to an elemtentary school." And yes, your signage is currently very discreet, and I appreciate that. I just hope your boss doesn't up the ante just to cause a bigger confrontation with the city in hopes of getting a better settlement/judgement.
I wish there was a strip club near my kids school. Sure would make waiting for practices to end a lot better! Go titties!

Here's what to think.

I'm a nudist, and a parent. Nudity is a non-issue in our house, and someday when the kids are old enough to even care (which in many nudist households, never even happens), it will be explained to them that there's nothing wrong or harmful about nakedness.

I'm not the first person in the world that's done this either. In fact, nudism has been harshly criticized in the past by the same sort of people who want to deny rights to gay couples today. Studies have been done again and again on what must have been the obvious harmful effects on children who see their parents naked every day before work.

And the results of all those studies? No harmful effects whatsoever. None. It doesn't even create a greater or lesser propensity towards nudism.

So the real problem is society's (and especially parents') *reaction* to nudity. The panicked response and "OMG my kids are going to explode if someone bares a nipple at the superbowl halftime show!" is far more damaging to the malleable minds of children than the actual nudity.

And that too has been studied in depth.
Let me try to explain this in terms of public safety! Strippers are considered a "Bio hazard". It is a proven fact that exposure to this volatile substance causes the sufferers to emit glandular emissions from various vulnerable organs which exist in the production of Precious Bodily Fluids. That is why the 800 foot rule exists. Even further precautions should be in force like enclosing Strippers in glass enclosures.
Why doesn't this guy just use his money to collect 30,000 signatures to get a city initiative going to just legalize strip joints altogether, ala Portland?
@Wockyockey Don't hate the man for getting settlements, cash strapped city or not. The city made the rules, the rules were untenable and they and lost in court, so they have to pay. It is not a frivolous lawsuit, the man is actually trying to change the laws and in a very effective way it seems.

@24 maybe he doesn't want to go through the process of something like that. He'd rather leave it up to the justice system to take care of laws that are unjust then to have to worry about the outcome of a vote. Yes, the laws are unjust. First the overturned law banning strip clubs, then the former policy of ignoring business applications and now the law that says you can only open a business of this type in a designation that doesn't exist in Seattle. It's liek the odl federal law where you can only buy pot if you have this certain stamp and they won't issue anyone that certain stamp.
Referrendums are for chanign laws that won't fall in court or that the Legislature won't pass themselves. Court cases are for changing laws that the legislature (or the voters) made which are unconstitutional.
I really don't have anything against strip clubs as long as the women are paid well, have good health benefits and are not physically or emotionally abused. (Don't know enough about each strip club in particular to know if they all meet these criteria.)

Pretty much everybody in Seattle knows that you can't legally have a strip club right across the street from an elementary school. So why do it? Are there not other places in Seattle to make good money off a strip club?

Thanks to tax cuts and corporate tax loopholes Seattle, like all other American cities is hurting for money. What kind of asshole brags about squeezing money out of the city via lawsuits during a time like this?
Getting rid of that mind numbing Giggles comedy club is going to raise the average IQ of the kids across the street by 10 points at least. Even if there is a strip club in its place.
Can somebody, anybody, please tell me how many school kids congregate in the playground across the street from this brick building with no doors you can see through, and no windows, at 2:00 am in the morning?

Come on now. How many school kids? How many?
@LPF "All that having been said... allow me to close with this. Its probably safe to say that most if not all of you have never been inside of Jiggles. Before you make baseless claims from the comfort of your laptop, while you watch a Sarah Palin speech on Fox News. I encourage you to give us a try."

Bad strategy. Nobody who's opposed to your employer's being open is going to be turned around by seeing the inside of that sadness hole.
@29 I'm right there with you.
@16: "Why is Washington Broke? Puritan morals and the wolf cry "For the Children"... Nanny state begone! Adults here, we don't need you. "

It's not the Libs doing this, you know.
Chances are Davis will win this one, I hope so. Since he had a license before the new zoning laws were put into place, the City is effectively trying to shut him down ex post facto. What the City is doing is illegal according to the Constitution.
More pictures of titties please, this is the internet ffs.

Speaking as someone who *has* seen the inside of a university classroom, I can say -- with official university-obtained authority -- that you come across like a condescending douche bag.

I also highly doubt that any of the children who go to this school will be emotionally scarred from the discreet presence of a strip club across the street, just like I doubt that any kids actually suffered mental trauma from possibly catching a glimpse of the magazine spread featuring the cast members of Glee in their underwear.

Grow up, America.
Pete Holmes is going to put many people out of work. Many college girls work in these places to help pay for their college education. Unemployment is high and we don’t need to have more people unemployed.
#28 FTW. It's not like the kiddies can see inside the club or accidentally wander in.

Guess what? Your neighbors might be naked or even doing sexier things within an 800 foot proximity to children!* Please, think of the children!

(*Never mind that nobody can see the what the neighbors do inside their home provided the blinds are closed.)
@7 and 8,

He just got his ass handed to him in court - I guess your armchair legal opinions didn't sway an actual judge.

Thats what he needs for his lawyers to file for damages if its true he has had a permit since 2007.

1) Pete Holmes is a Douche!
2) anyone know the name of the dancer?

I want to learn something from this article.