In the St Paul suburbs:
A tattoo shop would have a stigma that doesn't fit the image of the area, they said. Some complaints: There's a bus stop nearby, and the neighbors want positive influences for children. It threatens neighborhood values and ways of life. Property values might decrease. Adult-only businesses don't belong near neighborhoods.
Neighbor Rockne Waite, who said he has nothing against people with tattoos, attended the meeting.
"I don't care that there's a tattoo parlor. It's just not a good neighborhood for it," he said. "Coupling [the thrift shop] with a tattoo parlor would again bring in people that think a little differently than people around here. There's not a lot of people around here who are heavily tattooed."
-Tattoos draw opposition in suburbs
StarTribune
21 Dec 2005
Also at issue in the story is how an "adult" business (the tattoo parlour) fits in with the particular suburb's zoning codes. Do the codes allow such a business or not?
Or should we even have such things as zoning?
Cities are vibrant places, but the legacy of zoning has separated land uses and caused the standardization of our cities. A professional class of managers, lawyers, developers, and planners (among others) has risen to mange and navigate the labyrinthine laws created to control the functionality of the city. I should be grateful, I guess, as I'm applying to grad school in...urban planning!
But it's bittersweet. Actually, more bitter than sweet. Yes, I understand the need to regulate such things as building and sanitary codes and occupancy limits; these regs were the correct response to the hypergrowth seen in US cities during the Industrial Revolution.
But I think that it's all gone too far. Cities should be given the benefit of the doubt. They should be allowed to develop as "organically" as possible. I belong to the school of thought that contends that cities are living things; that the city itself knows how to grow and develop and live.
Managers don't. They simply know how to regulate, how to divide and parcel, and how to extract maximum profit from a development.
And pity the small business owner that tries to follow their dreams by opening up a tattoo parlour or a coffee shop and has to navigate all of these regulations. It begins to make sense at how Starbucks and Olive Garden and Barnes and Noble - with their mercenary armies of city code legal specialists - swallow up the mom-and-pop shops that once were the tax base of the city.
If someone wants to sell books out of their home, why couldn't they? If someone wants to rent out their unused garage as a housing unit, why not? Sure, there should be some sanitary standards, but how successful have our managers been in solving the affordable housing shortage? Not very.
Lastly, I find it interesting that these laws and regulations are enforced most strongly in the suburbs, with their reliable Republican vote. As the "free market" supporters and "pro-Freedom" party, you'd think that they would support small businesses (what's more, the tattoo parlour owner identified himself as a devout Christian!) more and regulations less. You'd think that such things as minimum lot sizes - an intrusion into the market - would be rejected. Yet, for all my criticism, it is the heathen liberal central cities which are more flexible in such matters. But we can be more flexible.
Let's relax zoning laws and figure out a way to dismantle the whole "property value" canard while we're at it.
I'm tired of giving a legalist legitimacy to those who want to separate us geographically into constituent groups.