Outraged by a law they say aims to run nude dancers out of town, attorneys for the city's adult-only entertainment lounges are considering a lawsuit alleging abuse of constitutional rights.
Chief among their beefs is a provision that requires sessions between clients and naked dancers to be videotaped and monitored on closed-circuit television.City Council members, meanwhile, make no secret of their desire to see "sexually oriented businesses" curbed in the city of 10,300, which because of its valley-central location and combination of zoning and lenient landlords is the hub of adult entertainment in Utah.
Opponents to the new law passed last week are particularly incensed with Councilman John Goldhardt, an outgoing council member who led the charge against the lounges.
"My impression was that Mr. Goldhardt couldn't leave his term without knowing he had taken his best shot," said Andrew Mc-Cullough, an attorney for American Bush who said he is preparing constitutional freedom of expression and search-and-seizure arguments against the ordinance.
Goldhardt, who was joined by all six other council members in voting for the law, says he was just doing his civic duty.
"How could I walk away with a good conscience and allow slimy businesses to stay in this city?" he said. "This was not a last-minute, last-ditch effort . . . this has been talked about and worked on for at least a year."
"Their businesses are slime, they're degrading to women, and it is not artistic dancing. No matter what their attorneys say, this promotes prostitution and other crime."
"We're not hiding anything," added Doug Moffat, midway through his council term. "We want to make it as difficult as possible on them because they don't help our community, they don't provide anything positive, it gives us a bad image and how can we be excited about that?"
"It put unreasonable requirements on the businesses," counters attorney Steve R. Cook, who represents Paradise Private Modeling, the Glass Slipper and Leather and Lace Modeling Agency. The city is home to six "sexually oriented businesses" the term commonly used in legal codes.
"It has draconian requirements," said Cook, who objects to a doubling of dancers' licensing fees to $300 and requirements that performers pay for their own criminal background checks and provide the city with extensive proof of identification.
And the television-camera provision infringes on patrons' privacy, he said.
"A client's going to have his face and picture kept in storage if he wants to come watch a naked dancer," said Cook, disputing the city's claim that only dancers will be recorded. "Often the customer will lean forward and give a tip, or lean over the barrier and give the girl a hug goodbye or shake her hand. He'll be on camera when he enters and leaves the room."
Cook dismissed City Attorney Clint Balmforth's insistence that the licensing-fee increase is to cover regulation costs.
"What cost do they have? Where is this going - to pay for vice cops to come in and watch a free show?"
"If I had my way, they'd be gone," concedes Balmforth, who notes the ordinance has a grandfather clause for existing business but limits them otherwise to one per 6,000, effectively barring new enterprises.
"We just needed tighter regulation because of a few problems. We've had some touching between the girls and customers that shouldn't have been."