From the words of a Mr.Family Supporter.

Mr.Family is constantly accusing Club10 of breaking laws and ordinances. And time after time people have to explain local law to him, but many of us forget, he lives in a another state than most of us, He lives in the great state of DENIAL. He will post what other states have done, and assumes that PA and W-B Twp. will do the same. But the laws are not the same from state to state.
The club is held to the ordinances that were in place at the time that there permit was filed. Even Mr.Family supporters know this, and they tell him, but he refuses to listen. When anyone post info he does not like, he just calls them a club supporter and disregards their comments, again, the state of Denial. This comments below are from a man who does not like the club, but does understand the law.

Mr. F,

First, I posted the information on zoning and land use ordinances and their enforceability in PA. I am not, however, as your post mentions, a "supporter" of the Club. My conclusion suggested directing your and the opposition's efforts at W-B Twp. and not the club.

Second, McCook County, from your post, is in South Dakota. Jurisdiction matters, and South Dakota law does not apply to Pennsylvania.

Third, your post refers to an ordinance that requires licensing for dancers and owners as well as a distance requirement. It is unclear whether the County is doing this under zoning or under the guise of the public health, safety, morals and welfare (the "police powers" of the state).

Looking at this South Dakota ordinance through Pennsylvania's glasses, if it is a zoning change, it dies in Pennsylvania. Again, GC10 has a nonconforming use and any change in zoning, once they are operating, cannot be retroactive. Refer to my previous explanation.

If, however, this is being pushed under the police powers, it MAY but only MAY pass muster. Nude and semi-nude dancing is U.S. Constitutionally protected free speech. In Pennsylvania, such dancing /operation of a club may be limited where the ordinance serves an interest within the power of the municipality, where it furthers an important or substantial government interest, where the government interest served is unrelated to free expression, and where the restriction on First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.

The third requirement, unrelated to free expression, means that the municipality cannot stop nude dancing simply because it is nude dancing. It may, for example, tie it to alcohol use (licensed liquor establishments) and issues of control, as I believe W-B Twp. indirectly did with the bottle ordinance (though I do not think GC10 is a licensed establishment). But, GC10 complied with this ordinance, and the club stayed open (and the plan backfired when the age limit was lowered).

One word of warning, though. If a town regulates to the point where a business has no option but to close its doors, in comes a claim for a Fifth Amendment taking without just compensation. And, the town may be forced to pay an amount unimaginable in exchange for ridding its soil of the club. Tax payers will see the costs of this, if not through taxes directly, then through the degradation of other town services due to cutbacks.


As you can see, others know what I have been saying this entire time, yet Mr.Family is blind to it, because it is not what he wants to hear.
Now I have talked to Sal Scalzo myself, and he has said many times, He does not want any suit filed from his club against W-B Twp. But if the Twp. tries to forcibly close his doors, he has the right to protect his investment, and I can imagine, like any other business owner, will file suit when anyone tries to shut the club down for any reason.