Massage Parlors - Suprise, suprise, suprise another deferral
Deferred for 5 years + the Massage parlor issue was deferred once again Monday night. What can I say about this issue that I haven’t said over the past 5 years. I think I could just reprint my blog from 2008 when I actually thought the issue was moving forward.
Lets look at the economics. Council will try to regulate massage parlors by attempting to reduce supply. How has that ever worked on any demanded item? From prohibition to the current drug trade, we know that limiting supply only drives the business underground where it thrives.
I’ve maintained that this is a zoning issue from the beginning. There are some places massage parlors just aren’t appropriate. Ouellette, Pelissier, Maiden Lane Chatham, University and City Center west are prime examples. But I think I said it best in my 2008 blog post below
want to commend and thank the city for correcting a problem with the process that lead to the rift in dialogue. Hopefully we can build on this, that the BIA will be included when obtaining input from planning on where this category of business should be zoned. Hopefully this will lead to more dialogue about other issues.
There is a chicken and an egg question here. Many people think that massage parlors sprout in areas that are derelict but they also are the reason those areas remain derelict and degrade even further. Show me an area dense in massage parlors and I’ll show you an area that has a high commercial vacancy rate. You can’t address that vacany rate until the problem is removed. This includes Pelissier street.
Second, Although I support local independant businesses, Downtowns must lure back national chains to intermingle with them. Many of those chains have conditions in their lease agreements that they will not locate within a certain distance from a massage parlor.
Third, could you imagine if a massage parlor located next to the city owned land in CIty Center West. OUr city has a $10 million investment (disputable but still a valid example) in those lands, how much further will those lands go down in value if massage parlors start sprouting up in the commercial properties surrounding them?
I always get asked would you rather have a vacant space than a massage parlor. The answer is you’re damn right I would because a massage parlor will yield more vacant spaces on either side of them.
Post Feedback
what was the reason for the deferral? i overheard last night at the DRA that the board is drafting a letter to present to council. What exactly are the issues that need addressing in time for a deferral?
Well said, Mark. Now the obvious question, since zoning is the solution - Where shall we “zone” the massage parlour district?
To john
Uh Uh Uh….tsk tsk tsk.
Not falling into the NIMBY trap. The solution is simply to decide which areas are being focused on for redevelopment and zone the massage parlors OUT of those areas first.
Taxpayers just spent literally millions (doesn’t matter whether it was federal or local) tax dollars streetscaping and decorating pelissier. Hows about we start there.
Taxpayers are about to spend 50-100 million on an aquatic center (AND I HOPE TO GOD THE AREA SURROUNDING IT) hows about there second.
Taxpayers just spent and are spending 90 million on a riverfront overflow basin that will be covered up with attractive landcape, 800 million on a casino/arena/convention center. The soon to be completed festival stage. The proposed streetscape in Wyandotte town center creating a wonderful pathway beteen walkerville and the casino. A Brand new VIA Rail Train Station.
WE ALWAYS FOCUS ON CITY CENTER WEST WHEN GLENGARRY MARENTTETTE CIP WAS SHELVED AND ITS SURROUNDED ON ALL SIDES BY TAXPAYER INVESTMENT. HOWS ABOUT FOCUSING THERE
It was a fair question, Mark. If you feel it was a trap, you built it yourself. The parlours - if they are to exist - have to go somewhere. One can’t just “simply” zone them out of one area and ignore the fact they’ll just go somewhere else. Don’t get me wrong, I empathise with your feelings about these parlours just not in agreement with the solution.
Why can’t one just zone something out of somewhere, I’ll match your “because I say so” with my “I Toldya so” .Then add the fact that you can create a zoning classification for massage parlors which is then simply omitted from certain areas.
Just because I can’t create a plan of where they should be located doesn’t mean that literally over a billion dollars of taxpayer investment can’t be protected or leveraged for more investment.
“the axiom ‘nothing but perfection’ can be spelled ‘p-a-r-a-l-y-s-i-s’ ” - Winston Churchill
There’s nothing stopping you zoning anything you want out of any given district, Mark. But as long as there is demand for that service, it will go somewhere. And if it’s a problem in your district it will be a problem somewhere else. Not “because I say so,” but because it’s simple algebra.
So bring on the investment, great, no objections, but don’t just move your rats out. Kill them, or make them a comfy home you can both be OK with.
Apologize for the tone of my replies. Thankfully u know me enough by now to know u don’t mean to offend
You’ll never kill the rats as long as there’s a demand. I just reject the premise that a billion dollars of investment must be jeopardizes in addition to pottentially 10’s of millions (maybe hundreds) simply because we can’t solve a problem that no other Canadian city has solved
Bow bldg in Calgary generated 200 million of spinoff development in high crime area because they cleaned it up at same time
Why would we ignore a successful Canadian example. Im not putting words in your Mouth but to me your saying, if we can’t have everything the. We should get NOTHING
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m just saying we need to be cognizant of the impact of our governing decisions. I’m asking for balance, not perfection. Because no one will ever achieve perfection in our lifetime. But it’s not a reason to sweep problems away rather then deal with them. And it’s OK about the tone, Mark. I admire your passion - even when I don’t agree 100% with you.