HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/07/2004, C5 - FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1456 (2004 SERIES) ADDING NEW CHAPTER 9.30 TO TITLE 9 OF THE SAN LU council M ept
September 7.2004
ac,Enaa Repoizt `�mNnb` s
CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Deborah Linden, Chief of Policez
Prepared by: Daniel R. Blanke, Police Captain
SUBJECT: FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1456 (2004 Series) ADDING
NEW CHAPTER 9.30 TO TITLE 9 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING NUDITY IN PUBLIC
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Ordinance No. 1456 (2004 Series) adding Chapter 9.30 to Title 9 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code prohibiting nudity in public.
DISCUSSION
On August 17, 2004, the Council voted (3-1=1, Council Member Mulholland voting no, Council
Member Schwartz absent) to introduce Ordinance No. 1456 (2004 Series) to print, approving the
addition of Chapter 9.30 to Title 9 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to prohibit nudity in
public.
Also on August 17, 2004, prior to introduction of the ordinance, the Council modified Section
9.30.020 by adding an exception to the general prohibition set forth in the ordinance for models
in art studios or art classes. That exception is now reflected in Section 9.30.020 (D) of Ordinance
No. 1456 (2004 Series).
In addition, at your last meeting, Police Department staff was directed to report to Council.on the
effectiveness of Ordinance No. 1456 (2004 Series) on or about October 7, 2005.
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance No. 1456 (2004 Series)
l�
ORDINANCE NO. 1456 (2004 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO ADDING NEW CHAPTER 9.30 TO TITLE 9
OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING NUDITY IN PUBLIC
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 9.30 is hereby added to the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to read as
follows:
Chapter 9.30
NUDITY IN PUBLIC PLACES
9.30.010 Nudity prohibited in any public.place.
It shall be an infraction for any person to appear nude in any place open to the public or any place
visible from a place open to the public. "Nude" within the meaning of this section means the absence of
an opaque covering which covers the genitals, pubic hair, buttocks, perineum, anus or anal region of any
person or any portion of the breast at or below the areola thereof of any female person.
9.30.020 Exceptions.
The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to:
A. Any person ten years old or younger.
B. Any female exposing her breast to the extent such exposure is necessary to breast-feed a
child.
C. Performers who are engaged in live theatrical performances performed in a theater, concert
hal] or other such establishment which is primarily devoted to theatrical performances.
D. Models in art studios or art classes.
SECTION 2. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the
names of the Council members voting for and against it, shall be published at least five days prior to its
final passage, in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance will go
into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the 17th day of August, 2004, and adopted by the Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo at a meeting held on the 7`s day of September, 2004, upon motion of ,
seconded by and on the following roll call vote:
Ordinance No. 1456 (2004 Series)
Page Two
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper,City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jona . Lowell, City Attorney
CS'3
RED FILE - m fm
MEETING AGENDA RECEIVED nbetlno
DATE ITEM #-C-5-5 .406 6 U 20U4 q
August 27,2004 SLO CITY CLERK _
� j 0LU NICI L .Q;10EDD DIR
R. Allen Baylis Esq. ✓CAO 1 IN DIR
Director,Naturist Action Committee .2 ACRO X2`1 IRE CHIEF
4050 Katella Ave., Suite 204 8 ATTORNEY 2-°W DIR
,0-CLERK'ORIG ?"POLICE CHF
Los Alamitos, CA 90720 Cl 09PT HEADS 2'P=C DIR
i13¢Tctl�unu CUTIL DIR
Dear Honorable Council Members of the City of San Luis Obispo: ll' C J I.R DIR
I submitted a letter in opposition to San Louis Obispo's proposed ordinance 9.30 to all of you on .
August 17, 2004. Due to the shortage of time available to me prior to the City Council meeting
on the 17'', I am submitting a more complete package of information for you to consider prior to
voting on the ordinance during the next Council meeting.
The Naturist Society is a national organization that supports and promotes body freedom and
body acceptance through nude recreation, hM://www.naturistsociety.com/. The Naturist Action
Committee is the political arm of The Naturist Society,htti)://www.nae.oshkosh.net/. We work to
protect the rights of naturist throughout North America.
As I stated previously, "breast flashing" for the delight and entertainment of crowds is not
something that naturist practice,nor does such behavior reflect naturist values. While we
understand the City's need to control unruly behavior during the Mardi Gras event, a complete,
City-wide ban on all public nudity is likely to have minimal effect on the drunken crowds,but
will affect the rights of the citizens of San Luis Obispo to engage in legitimate naturist activities.
The proposed ordinance suffers from three fatal flaws that could result in legal challenges. First,
prohibiting exposure of the breasts of females, but not those of males, is discriminatory on its
face, and as it would be applied in the context of the annual Mardi Gras celebration. Second, it
would adversely affect the rights of naturist citizens of San Luis Obispo to engage in lawful and
peaceful naturist activities in the city. Third, it is unnecessary to achieving the legitimate goals of
the City in maintaining civil order and is unlikely to be effective.
DISCRIMIATORY
The proposed ordinance is discriminatory toward women, on its face, as it prohibits exposure of
the female breasts but not those of males. In the context of Mardi Gras, the Police Department
has expressed it's intent to enforce the law only against women"The public nudity ordinance
being proposed would give officers a valuable tool to stop the behavior as soon as it occurs and
before it attracts large unruly crowds." This law as it would be enforced,would make criminals
of women due to the unruly behavior of drunken men.
Prohibiting exposure of"...any portion of the breast at or below the areola thereof of any female
person"is discriminatory toward women and is open to challenge under the U.S. Supreme Court
decision in United States v. Virginia(Virginia Military Institute) and/or under Article 1 Section 7
of the California Constitution.
Additionally, including this language would prohibit most women's swimsuit tops as well as a
lot of ladies eveningwear. Many states, cities and counties have adopted statutes and ordinances
1
with the same or similar language. However,these provisions of the law are virtually never
enforced without exposure of the entire breast. The City Council should refrain from enacting an
ordinance it has no intention of enforcing.
Most states don't criminalize exposure of the female breasts (California for example) while
others provide constitutionally based protection for female topfreedom. The State of New York
protects the right of women to bare their chests in any place that a man may do so. (See The
People of the State of New York v. Santorelli, et al. 80 N.Y.2d 875)
RIGHTS OF CITIZENS
Social attitudes about nudity are changing. In 2000,the Naturist Education Foundation
commissioned a Roper poll to gage the change in public attitudes toward nude sunbathing.
Without going into detail here,the results of that poll can be seen here: (Appendix A)
http://www.nef.oshkosh.net/Projects/NEF-Roper Poll/nef-roper poll.html
The language "place open to the public or any place visible from a place open to the public" is
extremely broad. This would criminalize back yard nude sunbathing if someone in a public place
somewhere could possibly view the nude person(s) on their own private property. This would
also prohibit legitimate naturist events, and have a chilling effect on nude political protests such
as the recent World Naked Bike Ride to protest dependence on oil.
For example, if a naturist club wanted to rent a private pool, gym or other recreational facility for
nude recreational events, and allow non-members to attend, they would be prohibited from doing
so with this ordinance in effect. This would infringe on their rights to free association and
peaceful assembly.
Life in a free society requires that we have a certain level of tolerance for other people's
behavior even though we may find it to be distasteful or offensive. In this country,there is no
overarching right"not-to-be-offended." We cannot pass a new law every time someone cries that
someone offended him or her. To do so will ultimately require us to tailor all of society's
behavior so as not to offend even the most sensitive among us. Essentially,the government has
neither duty nor right to protect everyone from being offended, as protecting one person from
being offended requires restricting the rights and freedom of the other. Passing the proposed anti-
nudity ordinance will only encourage the unhealthy gymnophobia of those who are so sensitive
as to be afraid of the nude human body.
NECESSITY
The real issue here is crowd control, not nudity. Has the Police Department actually found any
case where a citywide ban on all nudity or exposure of the female breast actually helped to
control an unruly crowd? The Police Department has already studied crowd control techniques
used in other cities. They should use what they have learned, and the tools that the California
Legislature has provide, and give these things a chance to work before creating another level of
government regulation.
A ban on public nudity is unlikely to be effective, and is unnecessary to achieve the City's goal
of maintaining civil order during Mardi Gras. Other cities have dealt with Mardi Gras and similar
2
crowds effectively without resorting to the use of discriminatory law enforcement practices or
broad anti-nudity laws. Louisiana is one of the few states that criminalizes exposure the female
breast, but police don't enforce that law during Mardi Gras. Yet even though"breast flashing" is
prevalent during the New Orleans Mardi Gras parade, effective crowd control techniques ensure
that civil order is maintained. Austin Texas has huge Mardi Gras celebration and no law against
exposing the female breast. Again, "breast flashing' is common at this event and Austin's Mardi
Gras event is orderly.
By the two previous examples it can be seen that effective crowd control during Mardi Gras is
not dependant on a law to prohibiting exposure of the female breast or public nudity in general.
Effective crowd control techniques and using the laws that are already on the books will
accomplish this goal. (Appendix B) In fact,to suggest that the police go into a large crowd to cite
a woman for exposing her breasts is likely to be counter-productive. To do so would almost
certainly inflame the crowd and incite a riot.
Public Nudity takes place with increasing frequency in U.S. with no problems. Examples of
peaceful occurrences of public nudity include; the annual Bay to Breakers Run/Walk in San
Francisco, the World Naked Bike Ride that took place in cities around the world in June of this
year, the Seattle Solstice Festival in Washington State, the Burning Man Festival in Nevada, and
at Clothing-Optional beaches all along the coasts of our great State. The common thread of
violence in large crowds is public drunkenness. In fact, large crowds of inebriated people cause
plenty of violence without any nudity or"flashing" involved.
Other cities have had similar problems that were claimed by the police to be cause by "flashing."
However, some of these cities have been able to control crowds without passing anti-nudity
ordinances. Most notably is the city of Huntington Beach, California, where the July 41' crowds
rioted for a few years. Through effective use of existing appropriate California Penal Code
sections, and good police work, they have had several years of relatively peaceful July 4`h
holidays, with out prohibiting public nudity.
It must be remembered as well,that City Council has a duty to represent all citizens including
those whose lifestyle choices they might personally disagree with, such as naturists. This
proposed ordinance would only serve to perpetuate the myth that the human body is dirty and
something to be ashamed of.
On behalf of all of the residents of you city who hold naturist values and abhor excessive
government control, we urge you to vote against passage of this proposed ordinance, or at least
delay any action until such time as all viable alternatives that will fit the City's needs while
respecting the rights of the people have been explored.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration,
C
R. Allen Baylis
Director,Naturist Action Committee
3
Appendix A
NEF/Roper Pol 12®®®
American Attitudes on
Skinny-dipping and Nude
Sunbathing
In 1983, The Naturist Society (TNS) commissioned an
independent Gallup poll of the attitudes of Americans concerning skinny-
dipping and nude sunbathing. The results were quite encouraging and
have been used for years as evidence of the acceptance of naturist
activities in the U.S. However, with the approach of a new millennium,
the numbers had unquestionably become outdated.
The Naturist Education Foundation (NEF) is the nonprofit
educational and informational arm of The Naturist Society. Using the
exact same questions asked by Gallup for TNS in 1983, NEF
commissioned the well known and highly respected Roper-Starch polling
organization to take the pulse of America in 2000.
NEF anticipated good numbers, but the results of the 2000
NEF/Roper Poll carry more positive news for naturists than anyone could
have imagined. Here are the three questions asked in the nationwide
scientific sampling, along with the gratifying answers of Americans.
QUESTION number 1
4
1983 2000 Do you believe that people who
80% enjoy nude sunbathing should be
80 .-........................................72% able to do so without interference
70 .........................__-_.. ......................................... from officials as long as they do
s0 ................................... .......................................... so at a beach that is accepted for
50 ...-......--......-..------ .......................................... that purpose?
40 ...--••---.................... .......-.............._.................
30 •••-•....-�•4%......•••• ............••..........•••••• ROPER POLL OF 1,010 ADULTS
20 ... ... .....................11.%.......... SEPTEMBER,2000
F
10 ... ...........
ERROR RISK:5%
0
NO YES NO YES
Nude Sunbathing?No Problem!
Few American adults object to nude sunbathing that takes place at beaches in
designated areas. The increase in acceptance over the past 17 years is significant.
The 2000 NEF/Roper Poll indicates that fully four out of five Americans today support
nude sunbathing at places accepted for that purpose.Approval for nude beaches
remains higher for men than for women, but the support among women has risen from
65% in 1983 to 75% in 2000.
QUESTION number 2
1983 2000
80 ................----............................................................................................-......... Local and state governments now
70 .............__..._------...._.................................................................................. set aside public land for special
50 ___ 54% 48%_......_._......_48% ... types of recreation such as snow-
50 . 39%_........................._............._...... mobiling, surfing and hunting. Do
40 "" .......... "' you think special and secluded
.... ..........
30 ..
20areas should be set aside or
10 ., people who enjoy nude
0 sunbathing?
NO YES NO YES
ROPER POLL OF 1,010 ADULTS
SEPTEMBER,2000
ERROR RISK:5%
Designated Nude Beaches - an idea for the 2 Ist Century
As legitimate and recognized of users of public land in the U.S., naturists have finally
turned the corner. The idea of setting aside portions of public land for special
recreational use is not new, but in 1983, the majority of Americans were not quite
ready to approve designated areas for nude sunbathing. In 2000,the idea has
achieved parity, with as many people supporting it as are opposed to it. The 2000
NEF/Roper Poll shows broad support across the country and compared to 1983, an
increase of more than 10% in support among women.
5
19$3 2000 QUESTION number 3
83%
80 .. .........._........._............................ 73%......................................
Have you, personally, ever gone
70
"skinny dipping"or nude
50 ........_..................... sunbathing in a mixed group of
men and women at a beach, at a
30 _ .........._......_......__......_. 25%...... pool, or somewhere else?
20 .. _......_.15%...........
10 ROPER POLL OF 1,010 ADULTS
SEPTEMBER,2000
0 NO YES NO ' YES ERROR RISK:5%
51 Mi//ion Skinny-dippers
The 2000 NEF/Roper Poll shows that one of every four adults in the U.S. has been
skinny-dipping or has sunbathed nude in a mixed-gender social setting. Using current
population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau,the poll suggests more than 51
million Americans have participated at one time or another in nude recreation.
For more information on the 2000 NEF/Roper Poll, contact the Naturist
Education Foundation.
NEF
P.O. Box 132 PHONE: (512)282.6621
Oshkosh, WI, USA 54903 FAX: (5nu282-2503
e-mail: ctnudists(rDaol.com
All poll results rounded to nearest whole percentage.
0 2000 Naturist Education Foundation,Inc.
All rights reserved.Reproduction without permission
prohibited.
6
APPENDIX B
Relevant sections of the California Penal Code
148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace
officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with
Section 1797)of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of
his or her office or employment,when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a
fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to
exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
404. (a)Any use of force or violence, disturbing the public peace, or any threat to use force or
violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution, by two or more persons acting
together, and without authority of law, is a riot.
404.6. (a) Every person who with the intent to cause a riot does an act or engages in conduct that
urges a riot, or urges others to commit acts of force or violence, or the burning or destroying of
property, and at a time and place and under circumstances that produce a clear and present and
immediate danger of acts of force or violence or the burning or destroying of property, is guilty
of incitement to riot.
(b) Incitement to riot is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by
imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
405. Every person who participates in any riot is punishable by a fine not exceeding one
thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both such
fine and imprisonment.
405a. The taking by means of a riot of any person from the lawful custody of any peace officer
is a lynching.
405b. Every person who participates in any lynching is punishable by imprisonment in the state
prison for two, three or four years.
406. Whenever two or more persons, assembled.and acting together, make any attempt or
advance toward the commission of an act which would be a riot if actually committed, such
assembly is a rout.
407. Whenever two or more persons assemble together to do an unlawful act, or do a lawful act
in a violent, boisterous, or tumultuous manner, such assembly is an unlawful assembly..
408. Every person who participates in any rout or unlawful assembly is guilty of a misdemeanor.
409. Every person remaining present at the place of any riot, rout, or unlawful assembly, after
the same has been lawfully warned to disperse, except public officers and persons assisting them
in attempting to disperse the same, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
7
410. If a magistrate or officer, having notice of an unlawful or riotous assembly, mentioned in
this Chapter, neglects to proceed to the place of assembly, or as near thereto as he can with
safety, and to exercise the authority with which he is invested for suppressing the same and
arresting the offenders, he is guilty of a misdemeanor.
415. Any of the following persons shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a
period of not more than 90 days, a fine of not more than four hundred dollars ($400), or both
such imprisonment and fine:
(1) Any person who unlawfully fights in a public place or challenges another person in a public
place to fight.
(2) Any person who maliciously and willfully disturbs another person by loud and
unreasonable noise.
(3) Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to
provoke an immediate violent reaction.
416. (a) If two or more persons assemble for the purpose of disturbing the public peace, or
committing any unlawful act, and do not disperse on being desired or commanded so to do by a
public officer,the persons so offending are severally guilty of a misdemeanor.
647 Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a
misdemeanor:
(f) Who is found in any public place under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug,
controlled substance,toluene, or any combination of any intoxicating liquor, drug, controlled
substance, or toluene, in such a condition that he or she is unable to exercise care for his or her
own safety or the safety of others, or by reason of his or her being under the influence of
intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any
intoxicating liquor, drug, or toluene, interferes with or obstructs or prevents the free use of any
street, sidewalk, or other public way.
8
Retain ells ooaarrwnu RX
f. ire Council moo"
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�������IIII`���� Date,rf gendized ,` RECEIVED
C0unC1mEmoRanoU AUG 31 2004
[city of san Luis ours o. abmrmstz T on ne artment LERK
DATE: August 30, 2004 ED FILE C � 0
TO: City Council g ING AGENDA ;fCAouNCIL r1c DD R
N D R
E ITEM # L !,-?`ACRO EI FIRE CHIEF
FROM: Ken Ham ian, CAO I AT70RNEY L3-PW DIR
p I�CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF.
VIA: Deborah Linden, Chief of Police ❑ DEPT HEADS - .2 REC DIR
_ 1 -0 uTIL DIR
SUBJECT: Additional Information—Public Nudity Ordinance i�-__ _ — SHR DIR
At the request of Council Member Mulholland, the following information provides additional
detail regarding the number and types of public nudity complaints received by the Police
Department during times other than Mardi Gras weekend.
It is important to note that since public nudity is currently not a crime, the Police Department
cannot track or retrieve all call data that may have involved this type of behavior. The calls
reviewed were located using a keyword search function. It is very likely that the number of
complaints received for public nudity incidents is greater than this search revealed since the
keyword search results depend entirely on whether or not the call-taker (dispatcher) used the
specific keyword in the call description. These statistics also do not include activity that is
initially witnessed by officers who intervene and stop the activity prior to someone calling the
Police Department.
Chief Linden reviewed 46 calls received in 2002 and 2003. The overwhelming majority of
incidents (over 91%) involved males. The largest percentage of calls involved people exposing
their genitals/breasts in public, followed by individuals who were nude in public places.
The following chart represents the type of activity and gender of the offender:
ACTIVITY MALE FEMALE TOTAL
Exposing genitals or breasts in public lace* 16 1 17
Naked in public place 10 2 12
Exposing genitals or breasts from vehicle* 6 1 7
Exposinjz and masturbating 3 -- 3
Exposing enitals and urinating in public 3 -- 3
Naked on private property in public view 2 -- 2
Exposure of buttocks 2 -- ( 2
TOTALS1 42 4 1 46
* The males included in these categories exposed their genitalia; the females exposed their breasts.
There were two calls regarding individuals who were nude on their property but who were exposed to
public view, and whose behavior generated a complaint to the Police Department. One of the calls
involved a man who was standing naked in his front window taking photographs of people passing by
outside. The other call involved a man who was hosing himself down while naked on his apartment
balcony, in full view of other residents in the complex.
Page 1 of 1
SLO Citycouncil-Alternatives to anti-nudity ordinance
From: <rab@baylislaw.com> Auh 31 2004
To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org>
Date: 8/30/2004 2:04 PM SLO CITY CLERK
Subject: Alternatives to anti-nudity ordinance
Honorable Councilmembers,
Here are some of many options that should be considered in place of proposed ordinance 9.30.
This is in the El Cajon Municipal code:
The arresting officer need not, in his discretion,swear to a complaint against persons taken into custody for drunkenness. If no formal
complaint is on file by any policeman or civilian,the intoxicated person may be lawfully released upon his recovery from
drunkenness.
This would be useful to get intoxicated people off the streets before they cause other problems.
Also,the City could enact an ordinance equivalent to P.C. 148,making it a misdemeanor or infraction to not obey the orders of a
police officer. In the case cited in the PD's agenda report,the person found sleeping in his care while exposed could be told to get
dressed and move on.Failure to do so would be a violation.
The City could also prohibit harassing persons or encouraging them to expose themselves in public during Mardi Gras week.This
would help eliminate what the Police indicate is the root of the problem,crowds harassing women and encourageing them to expose
their breasts in public during Mardi Gras.
There are plenty of other,more effective,options that.should be considered before passing an ordinance that would be of no real use to
solve the crowd concrol problem during Mardi Gras.
Thanks for your consideration,
Allen Baylis
Naturist.Action Committee
562-594-7224
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
Retain this document for DATEV ITEM #�
future Coun�cil1,meeting
� 1 U`i'
ate, agen
�COUNCIL TCDD DIR
;-;-CAO TFIN DIR
ACAO :G FIRE CHIEF
,2'ATTORNEYTepw DIR
,,YCLERKCRIG CPOLICECHF
❑ DFPT iE:.4DS y,r REC DIR
rl_ a'B0 y UTIL DIR
file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 8/31/2004
Page 1 of 1
,RECEIVED
Allen Settle - regarding the anti-nudity law AUG 31 2004
SLO C TY CLERK
From: "adrienne dickinson" <dickinsonfam@hotmail.com>
To: <asettie@sloaty.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slodty.org>,
<dromero@slocity.org>
Date: 8/30/2004 10:49 PM
Subject: regarding the anti-nudity law
RED FILE
We understand that although the new law against nudity in San Luis Obispo MEETING AGENDA
passed, there is still some finality missing. Hence, a comment on the
issue: DATE 161164 ITEM #LCC
Women are often blamed for the violent actions of men, as in blamed for rape
because of the way they are dressed, etc. When the real problem is violent
aggression or rioting, why not target the actual behaviors that are the
problem? Women's breasts are not inherently bad, of course, and we are
relieved that breastfeeding is at least protected in the new law.
It sounds like we already have a law that police could use to help control
situations like the riot during Mardi Gras. We must be very careful not to
give people the feeling that they are living in a police state. (Watching
Democracy Now's report on the protesters' treatment by the police in New
York yesterday further motivates us to speak out about unnecessary
restrictions on people.)
Thank you for protecting the good life.in SLO. Let's leave room for people � y,, �
to live and enjoy life. The police seem to have enough on the books to go _ -,L
ahead and do their job regarding Mardi Gras. One can imagine unintended y OUNCIL ADD DIR
consequences and results from the law that was just passed by the CitySAO ;SIN DIR
Council. I;CACAO Z�IRECHIEF
.a'ATTORNEY C PW DIR
Sincerel ��CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF
y' DEPr5 REC DIR
Adrienne and Robert Dickinson ( l DET HEADS uTiL DIR
i�HR DIR
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 8/31/2004
RED FILE
s c o T 'r rrEETING AGENDA
ITEM #�
Aug=ust 3(),2004
f lonorable Members
Cite Council
San Luis Obispo,California
Dear Sir or\ladam:
Recently you have considered a law that makes nudity illegal in San Luis Obispo City. The reason given,
according to newspaper stories, and a memo from Deborah Linden, is that the sight of a bare female breast
incites riots,and thus all nudity should be outlawed.
We certainly seem to be fixing in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land at this time, and both the law and the memo make
that obvious.
In the Memo, it is stated that it is the presence of bare breasts that causes drunken young hoodlums to
riot, and throw bottles at the police (the throwing of bottles at the police seems to have been the last straw).
Even if that were the case-and the evidence is clearly against it-why not simple outlawing the baring of the
human body- anywhere near drunken young males? Why, for example, does the law exempt the. nudie
"gentlemen's clubs" which are merely low-grade prostitution? The message here is that you can prostitute the
female body, but not expose it for free. Not an unsurprising message, considering its source, but a wrong
message to the young at any rate.
But,as I said,the evidence is clear that it is nol the exposure of the human body which caused the violence.
It was the beer,and the other consumables,which die good merchants of this (or some other town)-the same
merchants,by the way,who pushed Mardi Gras,in spite of the fact that its traditional reputation in Rio and in
New Orleans, includes extensive nudity - pushed it to make bucks, and then sold to these young fellows,.
Again, our dear police officers did not blame those merchants, or ask for a law to punish them for the bottles
sold to the"rioters" and supposedly thrown at our poor defenseless police officers. Why no law to outlaw the
sale or the consumption of alcohol during Mardi Gras?
Then, there is the matter of the provocative nature of the contemporary police officer in Califorthia.
They are, by the nature of their dress and demeanor, provocative in situations like the "law" is supposed to
prevent. By legal definition,in this state,thev are NOT enforcement officials. They are "peace officers". But
in a situation like the March Gras, they too often act to provoke violations of the peace. This is a problem of
incompetent,politicized mis-management as much as the nature of the situation.
There is question of the definition of "riot". Over and over again,when courageous journalists-not the
pompadoured presenters that we now have on the tube- have dug into so-called `riots" they have a found a
tendency among the police to distort events so that they can justifj their actions. And the pompadoured
presenters,really the spokespeople for the local establishment,never question the police descriptions.
Another key question is this: When did the drunken violence begirt? After the first breasts were bared,a
few years ago? Or did it exist before? If the drunken confrontations predate the bare breast, let alone the
other pathetic examples of public nudity that are cited in this memo, then it is obviously not nudity that caused
those confrontations or the"riots".
uNC L — CDD DIR
I CAO FIN DIR
(i ACAO FIRE CHIEF -
ATTORNEY PW DIR
CLERKtORIG POLICE CHF
DEPT HEADS REC DIR
—?— August 30,2003
If this law is passed, it is going to do economic harm to this city and thus area. For one thing, :Vex
Madonna was apparently planning to offer a clothing-optional swimming pool at the Madonna Inn since
European visitors frequently request such facilities. Breasts,in Europe,are appreciated, not feared. When the
word gets out, to Europe (and I promise you,it will), this city will he the laughingstock of our foreign guests.
And you will lose business. I guarantee that.
'1'o summarize: Did the confrontations precede the bare breasts? If so, why are you so focused on the
breasts?
If bare breasts can be proven to he THE problem, why are the police not recommending the closure of
the nudie clubs?
If bare breasts can be proven to be the problem during \Mardi Gras,.how does that lead to outlawing all
public nudity all the time?
Would there be confrontations without freely available alcohol? If not, why are you not prohibiting the
sale of alcohol during Mardi Gras,and the rest of the year for that matter?
Was there really a riot? Or are the police and their media allies painting an incorrect picture of things?
Why are you discriminating against those over ten years of age with this law?
Why are you passing a law which will threaten future business from those— Europeans—who seem to be
pacified,not aroused by breasts?
Why are you not using the existing laws that apply in this situation? Ten of them could have been used.
To blame the events of the 'Mardi Gras on bare breasts is like blaming the war in Iraq on Hussein's
connections to AI-Quaeda or to his non-existent weapons of mass destruction. It is false,it is a he,and since it
does not gibe with reality',it will he an expensive failure. If you adopt this law,you will spend great amounts of
the public treasure,but you will not solve the problem.
For the record,I worked as a Ranger for both the State and National Park Services;I worked the first units
where nudity was (and is legal), up in the bay area. There were few problems with the nudists — there were
many problems with the drunks, and the armed rangers who enjoyed confrontation. So I am speaking from
experience,and expertise.
Respectfully,
Donald M.Scott
P.0) BOX 979 • OCI:ANO. CALIFORNIA • 93475-0979
1'II ON I'.: 805 473 17141 • I':MA I I.: DSC OT 1 943 P.If A R'I'i II.INK.N H'1'
RED FILE
ME ING AGENDA RECEIVED
August 31, 2004 DATER 1 ITEM # i
SEP J 2. 2004
RE: Proposed Anti Nudity Ordinance SLO CITY CLERK
Dear SLO City Council,
Hello. My name is Alec Casanova and I am one of the three speakers who spoke in
opposition to the proposed anti nudity ordinance at your August 17`h meeting. After
thinking about what transpired and rereading the police justification for the ordinance I
am convinced the only issue here is crowd control during the Marti Gras celebration. I
since have also become aware the Marti Gras is a highly charged emotional issue in SLO
and people are passionately divided regarding this matter. I respectfully remind the
reader of the truism"the first casualty of war is the truth". This ordinance is obviously
not in response to any major problem with public nudity in SLO but indicates a grasping
at straws solution to the real problem of crowd control. In other words nudity has
become a convenient scapegoat.
It is no secret the problems associated with Marti Gras are created by young adults
consuming massive amounts of alcohol. How can we intelligently discuss real solutions
if we do not focus upon the real problem? Can you imagine a policeman wading through
a drunken crowd to give someone a ticket for"flashing"? This would probably create
more hysteria and cause more problems than it would solve.
In conclusion the following points will summarize the above discussion.
1. I urge the Council to table this ordinance in favor of a rational discussion to find a
real solution to the real problem of crowd control. There are cities that do have
successful Marti Gras celebrations.
2. Targeting women for the misbehavior of men is morally, ethically, and legally
wrong.
3. Solutions should focus on the particular time and place of where problems occur.
For example if there is a parking problem in a specific area or at a specific time
we do not pass an all encompassing city wide law for all places 24 hours a day.
Instead we analyze the situation and limit the law to the appropriate area and time
frames.
4. Is it the Councils intent to criminalize walking nude in ones own house if
someone passing on the street happens to view the individual? This is a far
distance from the original purpose of the ordinance: crowd control during Mardi
Gras.
— — Respectfully,
-E:':C0UNC1 ;:,CDD DIR „ p
CAO FIN DIR G(�Y--r,
ACRO -;—; FIRE CHIEF Alec Casanova
ATTORNEY ?'PW DIR Office:473-0808 ext.222
CLERK/091G ,C POLICE OHF
❑ DEPT HEADS 2"REC DIR
r[RIX �UTIL. DIR
r r HFI FAR