Photo by Brian Louwers The addition of another topless club on Eight Mile would bring the total bordering Warren to four, including the Coliseum, at Groesbeck. It would be the ninth on Eight Mile, a number some officials said is too many.

Opponents outspoken against topless
bar on border

By Brian C. Louwers
C & G Staff Writer
   
WARREN — A Warren councilwoman and the head of the Eight Mile Boulevard Association were among those who voiced opposition to a new proposed topless bar during a public hearing in Detroit last month.
   
Warren City Council member Melinda Moore and Tami Salisbury, executive director of the Eight Mile Boulevard Association, said last week that they went to the hearing before officials with the city of Detroit’s Building and Safety Engineering Department to put their concerns on the record about the proposed project on Eight Mile, between Dwyer and Mount Elliot, just east of Mound.
   
Moore, who two years ago proposed establishing Warren’s Blight Court to combat residential and commercial decay, expressed concerns about the potential impact of adding yet another topless bar on the city’s southern border. Last week, she echoed the statements of consultant Scott Bergthold — a Tennessee attorney specializing in matters concerning municipalities, adult businesses and First Amendment law — who told the Warren City Council last summer about the perceived negative secondary effects of adult businesses.
   
“What happens in Detroit doesn’t necessarily stay in Detroit,” Moore said. “We don’t need to have that kind of business on our side of Eight Mile, and the people in Detroit don’t want it there, either.”
   
Speaking on behalf of the Eight Mile Boulevard Association, Salisbury said she doesn’t have a problem with the business per se. But with as many as nine topless bars already on Eight Mile bordering Oakland and Macomb counties, she said enough is enough.
   
“The organization isn’t against topless clubs. I feel that with that particular site there are a lot more alternatives,” Salisbury said. “This is a 5.6-acre site. The topless club would only occupy one 1 acre. What’s going to happen to the other 4.6 acres? What’s going to go next to a topless club?”
   
Salisbury said if the goal of the association, and the city of Detroit for that matter, is to promote development, specific projects need to be better examined in a larger context.
   
“Our primary concern is that topless clubs tend to diminish economic development activities. Nobody wants to be next to a topless club,” Salisbury said. “When we’re trying to seek out Class-A tenants, national chains and restaurants, any of those historically don’t want to be next to a topless club.”
   
Moore said the city was notified along with other affected parties within 300 feet of the proposed development. The city will also be notified about the decision of Detroit’s Building and Safety Engineering Department, which was expected within two weeks of the Jan. 31 hearing. Depending on the ruling, either the developer or other parties could appeal.
   
Department officials did not offer opinions during the hearing.
   
“I don’t know how they’ll decide. They’ll have to decided based on what their ordinances and laws are,” Moore said. “There were 100 people in the room and not one person was for it, except for the petitioner.”
   
You can reach Brian C. Louwers at brianlouwers@candgnews.com