Cigars and Stripes?

[markberwyn]

May we now go on and drop the subject? Enough is enough were only spinning our wheels.

Ronnie Lottz, who was a finalist for an award from the BDC for improving Berwyn's reputation, said the mirror would be coming down. What is he waiting for?

[markberwyn]

Nonetheless, I still fail to see where any invasion of privacy/criminal offense and/or ordinance violation has occcurred here. Nor can I see how the Mayor, City, and/or Police Department is at fault and/or to blame.

Take it up with Marge Paul, who apparently believes the city has a responsibility to respond to the environment that Ronnie Lottz is creating in Berwyn.

[berwyn senator]

Are there not many other bars that create much more of a problem?

[The Jackal]

Nonetheless, I still fail to see where any invasion of privacy/criminal offense and/or ordinance violation has occcurred here. Nor can I see how the Mayor, City, and/or Police Department is at fault and/or to blame.

Take it up with Marge Paul, who apparently believes the city has a responsibility to respond to the environment that Ronnie Lottz is creating in Berwyn.

How is the city responsible for the two way mirror? Not what the city can do EX POST FACTO to address the issue but rather how are they liable for the incident in question?

[markberwyn]

Nonetheless, I still fail to see where any invasion of privacy/criminal offense and/or ordinance violation has occcurred here. Nor can I see how the Mayor, City, and/or Police Department is at fault and/or to blame.

Take it up with Marge Paul, who apparently believes the city has a responsibility to respond to the environment that Ronnie Lottz is creating in Berwyn.

How is the city responsible for the two way mirror? Not what the city can do EX POST FACTO to address the issue but rather how are they liable for the incident in question?

The city is doing exactly what it ought to do by discussing an ordinance. And again, I think Cigars and Stripes should have all permit requests rejected by the city council until the mirror is taken down; the city is responsible for the welfare of its citizens, and approving permit requests is tacit approval of potentially exploitative behavior. He deserves no special dispensation.

Moot point, though, right? Ronnie Lottz says the mirror will be taken down "soon." Perhaps he'll also be apologizing for tracking gender ratios in his establishment and calling women "prostitute," "bitch," and "c*nt" as well?

[berwyn senator]

How does the mirror differ from bars that have lingerie shows? or is this something in the past?

[The Jackal]

Nonetheless, I still fail to see where any invasion of privacy/criminal offense and/or ordinance violation has occcurred here. Nor can I see how the Mayor, City, and/or Police Department is at fault and/or to blame.

Take it up with Marge Paul, who apparently believes the city has a responsibility to respond to the environment that Ronnie Lottz is creating in Berwyn.

How is the city responsible for the two way mirror? Not what the city can do EX POST FACTO to address the issue but rather how are they liable for the incident in question?

The city is doing exactly what it ought to do by discussing an ordinance. And again, I think Cigars and Stripes should have all permit requests rejected by the city council until the mirror is taken down; the city is responsible for the welfare of its citizens, and approving permit requests is tacit approval of potentially exploitative behavior. He deserves no special dispensation.

Moot point, though, right? Ronnie Lottz says the mirror will be taken down "soon." Perhaps he'll also be apologizing for tracking gender ratios in his establishment and calling women "prostitute," "bitch," and "c*nt" as well?

That's not what I asked you.

What I asked is how is the City or PD responsible for the incident in question.

[markberwyn]

Nonetheless, I still fail to see where any invasion of privacy/criminal offense and/or ordinance violation has occcurred here. Nor can I see how the Mayor, City, and/or Police Department is at fault and/or to blame.

Take it up with Marge Paul, who apparently believes the city has a responsibility to respond to the environment that Ronnie Lottz is creating in Berwyn.

How is the city responsible for the two way mirror? Not what the city can do EX POST FACTO to address the issue but rather how are they liable for the incident in question?

The city is doing exactly what it ought to do by discussing an ordinance. And again, I think Cigars and Stripes should have all permit requests rejected by the city council until the mirror is taken down; the city is responsible for the welfare of its citizens, and approving permit requests is tacit approval of potentially exploitative behavior. He deserves no special dispensation.

Moot point, though, right? Ronnie Lottz says the mirror will be taken down "soon." Perhaps he'll also be apologizing for tracking gender ratios in his establishment and calling women "prostitute," "bitch," and "c*nt" as well?

That's not what I asked you.

What I asked is how is the City or PD responsible for the incident in question.

And I answered you: Ask Marge Paul.

[markberwyn]

How does the mirror differ from bars that have lingerie shows? or is this something in the past?

The places that had lingerie shows had hot wings, I think?

[The Jackal]

Nonetheless, I still fail to see where any invasion of privacy/criminal offense and/or ordinance violation has occcurred here. Nor can I see how the Mayor, City, and/or Police Department is at fault and/or to blame.

Take it up with Marge Paul, who apparently believes the city has a responsibility to respond to the environment that Ronnie Lottz is creating in Berwyn.

How is the city responsible for the two way mirror? Not what the city can do EX POST FACTO to address the issue but rather how are they liable for the incident in question?

The city is doing exactly what it ought to do by discussing an ordinance. And again, I think Cigars and Stripes should have all permit requests rejected by the city council until the mirror is taken down; the city is responsible for the welfare of its citizens, and approving permit requests is tacit approval of potentially exploitative behavior. He deserves no special dispensation.

Moot point, though, right? Ronnie Lottz says the mirror will be taken down "soon." Perhaps he'll also be apologizing for tracking gender ratios in his establishment and calling women "prostitute," "bitch," and "c*nt" as well?

That's not what I asked you.

What I asked is how is the City or PD responsible for the incident in question.

I'm asking YOU, not Marge.

YOU'RE the guy that went on the anti Berwyn rampage, aren't you?

I didn't see or hear Marge bashing Berwyn, at all. After all, if she did, she would be bashing herself.

[markberwyn]

I'm asking YOU, not Marge.

YOU'RE the guy that went on the anti Berwyn rampage, aren't you?

I didn't see or hear Marge bashing Berwyn, at all. After all, if she did, she would be bashing herself.

I suppose my answer to your question is that I don't understand your question. There ain't no POST in the FACTO---the mirror is still up in the establishment, correct?

I think what you're trying to swaggeringly assert is that the city has no place in this situation. But there's nothing out of line with the city drawing up a regulation to help ensure that every person (and especially every woman) has a reasonable expectation of privacy when they enter a restroom, and that they're not in an environment where they risk being exploited. The only answer that Ronnie Lottz and his supporters have given to this is something along the lines of, "Ain't nothin' happening there! You can trust Ronnie Lottz and his staff!" But if Ronnie Lottz is willing to lie to the media about taking down the mirror, what else is he and his staff willing to lie about?

[The Jackal]

My question is very simple....what fault do the city and pd have in the incident in question, for you absolutely waylayed both in this thread initially.

Very simple question.

I would imagine the answer is simple as well.

[markberwyn]

My question is very simple....what fault do the city and pd have in the incident in question, for you absolutely waylayed both in this thread initially.

Very simple question.

I would imagine the answer is simple as well.

I don't know what you mean by "incident in question." Ronnie Lottz putting up the mirror? His not telling people about it? His using it to prank women? The comedian discovering it?

In any event, it's not the city's and police department's "fault" that any of these things happened---Ronnie Lottz installed the mirror to hold women up to ridicule, not the city and police department. But the point, to me, isn't whether the city or police department are liable for any of those things---I don't think you can sue them for it. But to the extent that the city has a responsibility for the well-being of its citizens, I see nothing wrong with the city pursuing an ordinance barring two-way mirrors in establishments like Ronnie Lottz's. I also see nothing wrong with the city council voting down any permit and TIF-funding requests he brings to it, to send a message to him that his actions as a businessowner don't represent Berwyn's best interests.

[Ted]

How does the mirror differ from bars that have lingerie shows? or is this something in the past?

I think the situations have some similarities. Back then, my memory is that the city also had to create an ordinance to stop the lingerie shows.   I remember this being discussed at city council meetings in the 90s.

The "lingerie" show was viewed as an attempt by that particular bar/restaurant to get around the city ordinances against strip clubs.

  So, my memory is that the city changed the law, similar to what is going on with the 2-way mirror at C&S.

[The Jackal]

In any event, it's not the city's and police department's "fault" that any of these things happened---Ronnie Lottz installed the mirror to hold women up to ridicule, not the city and police department. But the point, to me, isn't whether the city or police department are liable for any of those things---I don't think you can sue them for it.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere....we all agree that the police department is not responsible nor is there anything they could have done before, during or after the fact. Correct?

If so, then how do you explain this:

FWIW, I think the BPD needs to own some of this too. What message does it send to women in Berwyn who are sexually harrassed that the police have looked at this situation and decided it doesn't merit action?

What exactly is it that the BPD "needs to own"?

What "action" did you expect/want the BPD to take?

I'm all ears....

[markberwyn]

In any event, it's not the city's and police department's "fault" that any of these things happened---Ronnie Lottz installed the mirror to hold women up to ridicule, not the city and police department. But the point, to me, isn't whether the city or police department are liable for any of those things---I don't think you can sue them for it.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere....we all agree that the police department is not responsible nor is there anything they could have done before, during or after the fact. Correct?

If so, then how do you explain this:

FWIW, I think the BPD needs to own some of this too. What message does it send to women in Berwyn who are sexually harrassed that the police have looked at this situation and decided it doesn't merit action?

What exactly is it that the BPD "needs to own"?

What "action" did you expect/want the BPD to take?

I'm all ears....

Exactly what I said---the BPD needs to send a message that sexual exploitation and surveillance are unacceptable. I don't think the BPD can be sued for anything, but I think their response was plainly subpar. Taking a look-see and saying everything is a-OK because there are no cameras and wires was weak, similar to the way women's claims of stalking and harassment are often dismissed because "there's no hard evidence of anything going on."

Creating an environment where women have the potential to be exploited is not OK. I think the BPD failed to send that message to the public in general and Ronnie Lottz in particular. It's like I said: "What message does it send to women in Berwyn who are sexually harrassed that the police have looked at this situation and decided it doesn't merit action?"

[markberwyn]

Of course, if the BPD assisted Marge Paul in drafting the ordinance, and speaks out publicly in support of it, I'd be happy to retract my assessment.

[The Jackal]

In any event, it's not the city's and police department's "fault" that any of these things happened---Ronnie Lottz installed the mirror to hold women up to ridicule, not the city and police department. But the point, to me, isn't whether the city or police department are liable for any of those things---I don't think you can sue them for it.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere....we all agree that the police department is not responsible nor is there anything they could have done before, during or after the fact. Correct?

If so, then how do you explain this:

FWIW, I think the BPD needs to own some of this too. What message does it send to women in Berwyn who are sexually harrassed that the police have looked at this situation and decided it doesn't merit action?

What exactly is it that the BPD "needs to own"?

What "action" did you expect/want the BPD to take?

I'm all ears....

Exactly what I said---the BPD needs to send a message that sexual exploitation and surveillance are unacceptable. I don't think the BPD can be sued for anything, but I think their response was plainly subpar. Taking a look-see and saying everything is a-OK because there are no cameras and wires was weak, similar to the way women's claims of stalking and harassment are often dismissed because "there's no hard evidence of anything going on."

Creating an environment where women have the potential to be exploited is not OK. I think the BPD failed to send that message to the public in general and Ronnie Lottz in particular. It's like I said: "What message does it send to women in Berwyn who are sexually harrassed that the police have looked at this situation and decided it doesn't merit action?"

How exactly was their response subpar?

What additional action were you expecting?

The BPD is in the business of enforcing existing laws and statutes.

There were NO crimes committed or laws violated.

What else did you want them to do?

[markberwyn]

In any event, it's not the city's and police department's "fault" that any of these things happened---Ronnie Lottz installed the mirror to hold women up to ridicule, not the city and police department. But the point, to me, isn't whether the city or police department are liable for any of those things---I don't think you can sue them for it.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere....we all agree that the police department is not responsible nor is there anything they could have done before, during or after the fact. Correct?

If so, then how do you explain this:

FWIW, I think the BPD needs to own some of this too. What message does it send to women in Berwyn who are sexually harrassed that the police have looked at this situation and decided it doesn't merit action?

What exactly is it that the BPD "needs to own"?

What "action" did you expect/want the BPD to take?

I'm all ears....

Exactly what I said---the BPD needs to send a message that sexual exploitation and surveillance are unacceptable. I don't think the BPD can be sued for anything, but I think their response was plainly subpar. Taking a look-see and saying everything is a-OK because there are no cameras and wires was weak, similar to the way women's claims of stalking and harassment are often dismissed because "there's no hard evidence of anything going on."

Creating an environment where women have the potential to be exploited is not OK. I think the BPD failed to send that message to the public in general and Ronnie Lottz in particular. It's like I said: "What message does it send to women in Berwyn who are sexually harrassed that the police have looked at this situation and decided it doesn't merit action?"

How exactly was their response subpar?

What additional action were you expecting?

The BPD is in the business of enforcing existing laws and statutes.

There were NO crimes committed or laws violated.

What else did you want them to do?

I just answered those questions. Would you like me to type my previous reply again?

[markberwyn]

I don't think Jackal is being actively mean-spirited in needling me with his questions. But it's important to note that his "no laws were broken!" line plays right into the hands of misogynists and abusers. It gives them license to continue their bad behavior so long as they don't do something illegal---and the laws regarding harassment and stalking can be weak and forbidding to women who are suffering through it.

Point is, Ronnie Lottz is creating an environment where people can act badly toward women. I do hope he can be compelled to stop creating that environment.