It is an argument people often make. Allow an adult business somewhere, like a topless bar or an adult book store, and allegedly related crime will follow. Vagrancy, prostitution, drugs and the like.
My only question: is that true? And if it is, why?
You see, I really don’t have a problem with adult businesses. In fact I don’t think anything involving consenting adults is intrinsically wrong. So why would it lead to crime?
I don’t have cites for this. I know there is a landmark US Supreme Court case where they use this rationale. Basically, the Supreme Court has ruled you have to zone adult businesses like the above in a content-neutral way (to do otherwise would constitute “prior restraint”). I don’t have the name of the case though (I looked on Wikipedia–but they don’t mention it either). Also, there is a recent news story that the Netherlands govt. has bought up most of the legal brothels in one district of the country for much the same reason. Again, I don’t have a link to the news story. But if anyone else does (for either of these), feel free to post it.
If you make white sugar illegal, scary biker gangs will get involved with its manufacture and distribution. Marijuana was pretty minor in its social impact before its prohibition.
I don’t know that it is true, but if it is, I can’t think of several reasons for it.
Such places are fairly often owned and operated by criminals.
The core client is someone who doesn’t care about his public image (low-wage, criminal, etc.)
It’s an ideal place for low-life scum to meet up, do business, and find clients/marks. Once you’ve got a lot of low-life scum in a small area, then market forces come into place to deliver the rest of their needs.
No, and it’s a silly (though self-fulfilling) argument.
Adult bookstores and titty bars tend to be in seedy parts of town because local zoning ordinances (at least in the US) are almost invariably written to keep them out of the nice parts.
People notice that strip clubs are always in bad areas, and assume that strip clubs drag down their surrounding neighborhoods.
The case you are looking for is probably Erie v. Pap’s AM or Barnes v. Glen Theatre.
First of all, a lot of these places aren’t located in areas where you’re likely to be seen by people who will care about your image. Secondly, visiting a sex shop might be bad for someone’s image but the same isn’t necessarily true for strip clubs. A lot of their profits come from businessmen, who arrange meetings there, stag parties etc.
Say, as an example, that we have a mountain with two paths going up it. Both paths are the same length, but one is far more difficult to walk. Are there going to be overweight people who walk along the difficult path? Probably, perhaps even a significant number. But you will still see a difference between the average level of physical fitness of those who choose the easy path and those who choose the hard path.
Any time you apply attractors or detractors in real life, it’s going to skew the clientele by some percentage off from the norm. I’d be fairly willing to bet, as an example, that you are going to see more priests at your supermarket than you will at your local titty bar.
A good, vibrant, functional neighborhood embraces diversity. It includes people from every walk of life, and different income levels. It has a variety of different establishments to serve these different populations. That’s how money gets made, people keep up their property (which is shown to make a huge difference in crime), people invest in things like community policing, etc.
People with families are less likely to live or do business near an adult bookstore or strip club. Would you want to walk with your kid every day past the skeezy men smoking outside of the nudie bar? If you were opening an upscale restaurant, would you want it next to a porn shop? Probably not.
So what does end up opening up next to these establishments is other marginal businesses that won’t be hurt by the location- liquor stores, pawn shops, junk stores, etc. These things are fine on their own, but when you end up witha block of them, it becomes a problem. A neighborhood can absorb skeeze when it is well distributed and integrated with the non-skeeze. But a big chunk of skeeziness becomes a problem- people stop maintaining their property (a pawn shop isn’t hurt by a broken window or burnt-out-sign the way a nice restaurant is), and that alone increases crime. Quite quickly respectable people stop going near, and it becomes a sinkhole of lowlifes.
Also, adult businesses are less likely to welcome the police, because there are periphery illegal industries and activities that they benefit from. A strip club doesn’t want its dancers arrested for drugs or prostitution. A few hostile businesses can make policing an area much more difficult- and I wouldn’t be surprised if the police just leave the whole area to itself in frustration.
As far as actual proof, one could consider Times Square. Supposedly crime went down and the local economy had a mini-boom when all the porn theaters and other trash got swept out.
Suppose some people formed an irrational belief that auto-parts stores attracted a bad crowd. For whatever reason, these people believe that criminals hang out around auto-parts stores. Believing this, true or not, they’re going to avoid going near an auto-parts store if possible. And that includes going to a business next door to an auto-parts store if there’s another business they can choose instead.
So now you’re planning on opening a pizzeria and there are two locations available. They’re pretty much equal but one is next door to an auto-parts store and the other isn’t. Which one do you choose? Even if you personally have no problems with or irrational beliefs about auto-parts stores and the people who go to them, you’re going to make a rational decision to avoid starting a business near one if possible.
I think it’s probably true that many people (though not all) who are involved in the vice business are also involved in illegal aspects of the vice business, e.g. prostitution or child porn.
Well, strip clubs tend to have large bouncers, I presume to escort unruly guests off the premises. I can only imagine that if there were not unruly guests, there would be no need for bouncers. Since the clubs themselves seem to acknowledge that patrons can get rowdy, it doesn’t strike me as unfounded that the neighbors may also believe that the patrons may tend to get out of line.
No, it only proves that a lot of people don’t want these establishments in their neighbourhoods. A lot of people object to liquor stores being opened in their neighbourhoods too but that doesn’t mean they judge negatively everybody who goes into one.
I’m also more likely to see them at the supermarket than at the local mosque. What does that prove about mosques?
