Thursday, March 19, 2009

Tattoo test for Mayor and Council

A tattoo parlor wants to locate itself at Baseline and Dobson, near the Dobson Ranch neighborhood. Needless to say, the neighbors in the area don't want it, but it does meet all of the technical requirements of the zoning laws.

It is understood that tattoos aren't for everyone, but they aren't illegal, and quite frankly, they are more prevalent today than ever before. So, should they be denied because they are viewed as unsavory or should they be approved because its economic opportunity? This going to be a real test for the Mayor and Council.

These are the types of no-win situations that you have to assume are dreaded by local officials.

On one hand, you want to encourage commerce in the community and make sure the City is perceived as a great place to do business. Making it difficult for some people to set up shop, or denying people their property rights only reinforces the negative perceptions of Mesa that these officials have fought so hard to dismiss. Mesa is still recovering from the Bailey's Brake Shop debacle.

On the other hand, you are elected to represent the people. In this case, the neighbors have made it clear that they don't want this business. Does each and every resident not want it? Probably not, but the vocal ones are making their voice heard. Do you risk going against their wishes only to have them feel betrayed?

How this vote takes place is going to say a lot about this council and their ability to work through problems.

5 comments:

Brandon Franklin said...

Uhm, it's just a tattoo parlor. "Unsavory"? Are you kidding me? Not everybody agrees that they're "unsavory", and the law certainly doesn't. Seriously, if people in Mesa have a problem with something as minor as this, Mesa's future is in SERIOUS trouble.

Denying a legal business access to "your neighborhood" because you just don't like their product is absolutely outrageous. If the people want to pass a law making tattoo parlors illegal in Mesa, then they can give that a shot. Otherwise, a legal business is a legal business. Get over it.

Heath Reed said...

This will not make or break this council. Sorry to say that, but it is not a big deal. They have to listen to their constituents and represent them. However, the business is free to come in if it works under the current law. Dennis K can say my district does not want it at this location, but lets see how we can work with you on it. The neighbors as property owners in the area are free to say they do not want this in their neighborhood too. It is their right, and both sides have rights. Don’t forget that lame prop 207 could be used in this case.

I rather have a neighborhood come to gather and be active in what is in their area no matter what the issue is. That’s what makes great neighborhoods is when people are aware, active and take care of each other. Even the tattoo apologist needs to get over it.

Terry said...

Public information from Dept of corrections website

http://www.azcorrections.gov/inmate_datasearch/results.aspxInmateNumber=092294&LastName=COLEMAN&FNMI=R&SearchType=Search

Mesa Issues said...

To be clear, I did not mean to make the blanket statement that parlors are unsavory. A note that has been fixed in the post.

Nor did I say that this would make or break the council. I said that this would be a "test" for them. To this point, there has been a lot of consensus about direction and vision for Mesa. There is a great chance that some of the councilmembers could feel like each of you guys, as in, there could be some disagreements.

How they handle this and walk the fine line between pro-business and pro-neighborhood will be interesting.

Heath Reed said...

good point M.I blogger