SB 16, SB 117: Wresting control from our cold dead votes

Please, please please read this post by Jason Sonenshein on SB 16 and listen to this podcast from today’s Meet the Bloggers about SB 117. I’m working to figure out how to get a transcript of the latter asap and papered to every Ohioan who votes. The participants are a who’s who of brains, braun and leaders who care about consumers. It gets technical at times but you owe it to yourself and Ohio to listen.

Recap:

SB 16 is the bill that just passed the Senate, 24-8 (only 8!) that will remove (or at the least, conflict with) local communities authority to regulate strip clubs and adult entertainment. The also Republican-dominated general assembly of last sesssion passed a bill that the former governor signed into law in August. 2006. Let the locals handle their community values; Ohio is no monolith.

SB 117
is AT&T’s attempt to remove all local control over negotiating and attaining cable and other utility services as the company seeks to further penetrate the Ohio marketplace.

4 thoughts on “SB 16, SB 117: Wresting control from our cold dead votes

  1. Jill, thanks for the link and the recommendation!Mr. Williamson, you’re right. I tend to see cultural issues such as this one from a libertarian perspective. I need to remember that not everyone sees the world the same way I do. However, I think the important part right now is not to convince Republican legislators to agree with me, but to show them that they have constituents that oppose this legislation. You make a great point when you argue that this bill could actually result in increased prostitution.

  2. I read Jason’s post, but didn’t really find it compelling, as he only approached it from a libertarian standpoint that’s not likely to sway Republican state legislators. Your WLST posts on overturning local control are much more compelling. I believe that if they enact SB 16, it’ll be LESS effective at curbing prostitution than leaving things the way they are. This is a comment I made at Right Angle Blog that I think pertinent to repeat here:”If we are going to clamp down on occurrences of prostitution, how does this bill manage to do that exactly? Actually, it would probably increase the potential for prostitution. Consider this: the bill stipulates that adult entertainment must cease at midnight. If a place is currently open from 8 pm to 4 am, and those hours are OK under local ordinances, then the state bill shutting the entertainment down at midnight would be the more restrictive statute, thus pre-empting the local ordinance. Assuming that some dancers are willing to cross the line and engage in prostitution if they didn’t make enough money during their dancing shift, consider that they will only have until midnight to earn their money instead of 4 am. Would that tend to make them more eager to cross the line? At 4 am, local bars have already closed, police have had an opportunity to process DUI’s on the way home from bars, and so the manpower exists to monitor the closing of the strip clubs at 4 am. Change the situation to midnight. The dancer had only 4 hours to make money. The local bars are still open until 2 or 2:30 am. The dancer who is interested in making money from prostitution who used to not be able to leave work until 4 in the morning is now off work at midnight, with more ample opportunities to head to the local bars for finding johns at the same time that she is more willing to use prostitution to cover the income gap left by the midnight closing. Meanwhile, local police between midnight and 2:30 a.m. have their hands full patrolling the roads for DUI’s. Local ordinances probably would have involved greater disincentives for prostitution, while the more “restrictive” state regs would create more incentives and more opportunities for prostitution. Thus, it’s very conceivable that this ill-conceived measure will NOT have the beneficial effect that its sponsors intended it to have.”Those that support this bill haven’t understood that more “restrictive” does not equal more effective.

  3. It certainly seems that General Assembly members are pinning their re-election hopes on support from special interests rather than support from communities.Thanks for spotlighting these state intrusions into local jurisdictions, Jill.

Comment here

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s