No, I thought a councilor was bringing something up … but we’re done. I’ll post soon.

Kisela has presented an incentive program which would give the Commons contractor, Marshall Brothers, a $1,000/day bonus if they finish early “based on a number of comments and concerns since we closed Indian Bayou.”
Jim Bagby moves. Trammell seconds.
Bagby: Let’s not pay up until they’re finished. Sod, irrigation, drainage, everything.
Steve Schmidt: We’d define “substantial completion” as the road being open to the public, and any remaining fixes must be done with at least one lane open (and the fixes must be done in off hours).
Passes unanimously.

No questions for McCleary from the council, but he’ll be waiting by the phone in case questions arise further in the meeting.
Now the public hearing. Someone’s getting up …
Fred Rall, resident of Destin: “I am here representing Safe Harbor Presbyterian Church” which is on the corner of Main/Airport and close to the industrial zoning where SOBs are allowed.
“We’d like to express our opposition to any kind of sexually oriented business in Destin at all. We don’t see the reason for one … If there must be a sexually oriented business in Destin, we request it be as far away as possible if it has to be in the Industrial zone.” Anything closer than 1,000 feet “would certainly impinge upon our church.”
Distance-from-church/school/etc. requirements have been dropped from the current ordinance because it would make it impossible for an SOB to open—and case law says they can be regulated, but not banned.
Sam Seevers moves to approve.
Land Use Attorney Scott Shirley says they have to adopt the legislative record first. Seevers moves accordingly.
Unanimous.
Seevers moves to approve the ordinance.
Unanimous.
Adjournment.

If you’re wanting details of McCleary’s analysis, I haven’t been writing it down, since I’ve written it for articles and liveblogging in the past.
He’s now giving his conclusion: Empirical studies have made it “scientific fact” that SOBs pose “large, significant, ambient crime risks.”

He says sexually oriented businesses pose significant hazards to public safety in the form of a rise in prostitution, drugs, robbery, auto theft and vandalism (attorneys for the “SOBs” dispute all this). The risk of crime can be mitigated by regulation, for example removing alcohol, limiting operation hours, spacing the businesses out, etc. Because the patrons are open to vice overtures, often drunk, they’re “soft” targets for criminals.

Apparently this will be a repeat of the evidence on “crime related secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses” that attorney Anthony Garganese made the first time the ordinance was adopted. As part of the repeat process, I guess it has to be resubmitted.
McCleary is now explaining his credentials. “I’ve been studying the effects of adult businesses for 30 years” is the keynote.

Invocation: Check.
Pledge: Check.
Now comes the reading of the title. It takes approximately 2 minutes 10 seconds; I’ve heard worse.
Staff are now placing the call to McCleary.

They’re swapping some stories on the dais.

Oh, Richard McCleary, who did a lot of the research the city uses (as have many other cities) to justify it’s “secondary harm” approach to strip clubs, is on speakerphone and ready if the council has any questions.

The council are returning to the dais after the break. We have a few city staffers and a half-dozen non-staffers in the audience. None of them look like lawyers, so I’m thinking the applicant isn’t going to try and make a case tonight. That being the case, I’m anticipating a swift meeting, followed by me posting via WiFi after I get home.