Oh settle down, it’s not like they are selling hot dogs and dildos under the same roof
God forbid someone sells underwear and ‘Over the Hill’ gag gifts next to a cookie shop!
The store’s opening has some tenants in the retail center worried.
Deb Emmert, who owns Cookies By Design, said she’s not excited about being next to the store.
She said she doesn’t think it’s a good fit for the location because it’s near a park and family-oriented businesses.
“I just don’t think that 41st Street is an appropriate place for it, especially in this location,” she said. “I think it will be detrimental to the businesses around here.”
Emmert said a lot of families come to her store to buy goodies, take classes and even for birthday parties. She’s talked to some customers about the new store and said people are concerned.
Who are these ‘people’? A bunch of cookie eating bible bumpers like yourself?
I owned a lingerie store called ‘Intrigue’ at 26th & Minnesota circa 1983. It was Victoria’s Secret styled but with live models and saloon door dressing rooms. The commissioners (then) and chamber endorsed it. Love Shack is a national chain. I hope the city tries to zone them out. They’ll be in court for years and eventually lose.
I’ll be contacting Mr. Eliason to offer my uncompensated testimony and case file. He might be seedy but he’s a citizen. He needs to know that city hearings are without a court reporter, you must represent and testify against yourself, evidence is not allowed, there is no official file, and there is no appeal. Perhaps, he’ll join a class. Probably the best recourse here is to open without a permit. Ignore city citations and hearing notices. When the city brings a court action, it could be argued neither party has the right to appeal into court per Code Section 2-66. A court can only do a ‘JUDICIAL REVIEW’, when prior to 2007 ‘EITHER PARTY COULD APPEAL’. The court must decide that they can fine up to $600 but have no way to collect it or be awarded action or compensation. Home Rule does not give them the power to close a store, just ‘Cry Wolf’. ‘Wolf’ will get free advertising that’s cheaper than court costs. They’ve abused Home Rule, the state would not amend their charter. Why do we support them? They pocket our money, incite more cost, have no enforcement power, and deny citizens their constitutional rights.
I have met Mr. Eliason, he isn’t a seedy character, in fact he has quite the sense of humor. I still remember when he put a giant banner on the side of his Olivia’s store saying he endorsed Sandy Jerstad and Manny Steele to the statehouse, hilarious. I’m sure he loves the free advertising. I just think people who have an issue with lingerie and over the hill gag gifts have some serious issues. Besides, if a kid asks what it is, all you have to tell them is ‘fancy underwear’ and they probably wouldn’t think twice about it.
Gonna be perfectly honest with you L3wis and say that I absolutely, positively disagree with you on this. Why? Because what if you owned a shop like Cookies by Design, and you found out that your next door neighbor was going to be a store like this? Deb has a valid point.
Sorry, if the leasor has no restrictions and the city has no clout it will happen. She’ll have to accept it. It could mean more business if she sells erotic shaped cookies and edible panties.
Considering present incapacitated city government now would be a good time to open a nude club or female impersonators juice bar. If it were on Phillips, there would be the long sought entertainment downtown revival.
Hopefully, some day the city will realize constitutional democracy is how they will be effective. They really need a good lawyer and not city employee fallout who’ve never tried a case. Meanwhile, the best way to recycle republicans is hurting them in their bank accounts because marxist politicians have steered them into socialism. For now, it’s only cookies and adult entertainment. If the city is ineffective and the state is looking the other way, it’s also a good time to sneak in real casinos like Larchwood.
Sorry CC, but Deb’s argument is flawed. My neighbor doesn’t get to tell me when to mow my lawn, and Deb doesn’t have a right to tell her landlord who can move in next door to her, it’s called property rights and it is guaranteed by the US Constitution. If she doesn’t like, she can move.
My neighbor doesn’t get to tell me when to mow my lawn
Well to some degree he does. If you lawn gets to a height of eight inches all he has to do is call the city code inspector and have you cited for it. 🙂
I can understand Deb being upset, but frankly this is no different than if a bakery opened up next to her that sold cookies along with a lot of other things that directed customers away from “Cookies By Design”. She might not like it – but thats just the way things are. Unless she had an agreement from the landlord that only certain types of businesses would be allowed she can’t really do much about it other than wait for her lease to expire.
I agree. She has a right to be pissed off about it. She also has a right to leave that POS strip mall. Hey, this is freaking America, if you don’t like something, do something about it, stop crying in your cookie dough about it.
I still remember when he put a giant banner on the side of his Olivia’s store saying he endorsed Sandy Jerstad and Manny Steele to the statehouse, hilarious.
The video of Jerstead threatening to call the cops if they didn’t take the sign down was pure comedy gold. It even made Fark’s front page, thanks to yours truly.
CCF – She can complain all she wants about who goes next door, but she can’t stop them. All she can do is move to a new location when her lease is up.
No shit, what does she expect? People protesting lingerie? Like romance between consenting adults is ‘dirty’. Give me a break!