Fort Walton Beach Council minutes — 04-26-1982 Special — reading text

had concepts and foundations that establish those parameters. He said each of the audiences’ churches had standards that establish that and by his best evaluation there were not an alleged offense in the ordinance or described offense in the ordinance which did not con- stitute Biblical sin. He said he as a Councilman was now charged with establishing a level at which Biblical sin would carry with it criminal sanctions. He said if that was an easy standard for him to apply then he would take exception. He said if they believed that they could tell him at what level they should establish a line he would listen to them and consider their opinion, but he asked them to examine for a momemt the degree of variance that they might have in certain circumstances in certain limited situations. He said there were members of the group present who belonged to churches who had varying levels of established sinful activity. He submitted that some denominations which establish excessive alcoholic consumption as being Biblical sin; there were likewise some who believe that in order to avoid committing Biblical sin, absolute abstinence was necessary. He said that distinction could be found with the audience present. Mr. Miller 4-26-82 279 Mr. Miller asked where they could draw the line between those two. He said they were asking Council to establish some level where they must draw that line. He said he had some difficulty with doing that; he said he had difficulty for the reason that it was hard for him to impose his standard upon someone else and nextly provide a standard that he felt was a reasonable standard for the community - to even determine at what level that occurred. He said he had some challenge with that. He said he was not a smoker but there were denominations that would tell you that was Biblical sin. He asked at what level were they asked. to draw this line. He said the standard of the community has as each probably knew or could speculate at best permitted topless dancing and performances for some period of time. He said he had looked at the laws of the state of Florida as best he could summarily research them and could not find that was a violation of state statute but he had found that most of the other alleged violations or performances or exhibitions that were described in the ordinance were already prohibited by state statute and where the law enforcement authorities in this community had known of those violations, arrests or charges had been levied. He said it caused him to question as to certain aspects of the ordinance, the need for certain aspects of the ordinance. He said if a state statute was challenged and those had been and they knew the parameters reasonably of the activities that were proscribed as being illegal; we had the advantage of that exposure being that of the state of Florida and not exclusively the City of Fort Walton Beach. He said where it was clear that certain offences did violate the state statutes he favored the expense of that challenge to be shifted or to remain where it presently was; out of the pocketbook of the state of Florida as opposed to the City of Fort Walton Beach. He said where there were state offences he believed that appropriate arrests and prosecutions ought to occur. He believed they needed to sort out those portions of the ordinance which duplicated state law and make our cases under those proven state laws. He said an aspect of the ordinance which was described in terms that vary from that found in the Cocoa Beach case describes “simulation thereof" as to certain physical characteristics and physical performances. He said he had a great deal of difficulty in defining what "simulation thereof" meant. He said he saw that term as being a subjective standard and saw Council as imposing upon a law enforcement officer which might be one of the many on the police force, the burden of observing a particular physical characterization or a particular physical act and determining by his own evaluation in the field whether that is a violation of the ordinance. He said he would not want to be that police officer. He said there were obviously imaginations that they could conjure that would clearly satisfy them in their own minds that they clearly represented simulations of of particular physical characteristics or physical acts which they would have no question or doubt about. He asked where that law enforce- ment officer was to draw the line of when a particular simulation violates or did not violate the ordinance. He said he saw that as a substantially difficult burden to place upon a law enforce- officer. He noted in reading the ordinance he saw two areas 0 where he thought it imposed a substantial variation from what had been permissible performances in those establishments in the past. He said one of those instances was in topless dancing. Mr. Miller MAYOR ANNOUNCEMENT Mr. Franklin 4-26-82 He noted the history of permissiveness of that in the community. He said the other was the question of the production of film or representations other than physical representations and in reviewing the Cocoa Beach ordinance as it is set out as a footnote in that case - saying he had not seen their ordinance in full - but as he was led to believe that the ordinance in the footnote in the case was the fill] ordinance; that ordinance did not address the issue of films or reproduction of materials, cassettes, etc. and the showing of those which we have a state statute that preempts that field. He believed that the aspect of the ordinance which purports to regulate the movie house type setting exceeds what had been tested in the Cocoa Beach case and he had concern about that in light of the state statute which says the state of Florida has preempted the field of obscenity in that mode. He said they were challenged to find a level at which they were willing to accomplish a particular end and he thought the first thing’ they must determine was what particular end was desired, and then whether they could balance that with the constitu- tional considerations as opposed to the strictly moral con- siderations and find a balance which they were willing to adopt. He said his conclusiors as to. the ordinance that was before them were aspects to it that he was fully willing to adopt; and there were aspects of it of which he had some doubts and which he would like to have them discuss their alteration, their change, and to have Council seek some conclusion that would reflect a standard of reasonableness for the community. Mayor announced that a note had been received from Mr. Sundy at the beginning of the meeting saying he had an emergency and was unable to be at the meeting. Mr. Franklin noted he was out of town for the last meeting when this issue was brought before Council, saying he was fully prepared at that time to discuss the proposed ordinance and he was. prepared for this meeting to discuss it. He said he had some mixed emotions about this particular ordinance. He said it was difficult for him to sit there and follow the golden tongued arbitrator as Mr. Palmer used to call Mr. Miller. He said this ordinance the way he saw it only applied to facilities selling and serving alcoholic beverages and asked what was to stop these particular facilities we have in Fort Walton Beach from stopping the sale of alcoholic beverages and continue what they were now doing. Number 2, he said he knew that everyone had said that this ordinance was legally defensible but felt as sure as he was sitting there, the ordinance if passed would be tried and the City would have to defend it and he for one at the present time was not prepared to spend any more of the taxpayers money towards defense of such an ordinance. He noted the letter read by the Mayor from a tourist. He said he had received numerous letters that he felt were personally addressed to him that he would not read at that time; some were for the ordinance and some were against passing the ordinance. He said he, like Mr. Miller, did not believe that a lot of the items that were listed in the ordinance were being performed on the stage in any of the places we had in Fort Walton Beach. 4-26-82 | | Mr. Franklin 281 Mr. Franklin said he could attest to it and could testify to it as Mr. Baughman could not, He said when this ordinance first came before Council, he said he would need a kitchen pass to go and check those places out; he made the confession now in front of a large group of people that he had gone and checked those places out and he challenged each of the Councilmen to go and do this; he also challenged the people in the audience to go and do this. He said some might say it was a sin to go in those places, but he felt it was his responsibility to ‘the citizens of Fort Walton Beach if he were going to set there and legislate and dictate what can and what cannot be done in Fort Walton Beach to investigate and come up with a proper solution. He remarked that after listening to the audience for a while, he would like to make a motion. Frank Miles Mr. Frank Miles, 26 Hemlock, said this was his third time to appear before Council and he would appear each time this ordinance came up. He said he had heard all about rights and asked about the majority rights. He said they wanted decency in the community. He said if they overlooked this ordinance they would also be overlooking murder, rape, dope, etc. He said what bothered the community bothered his family. He said he didn't mind his tax money being spent to defend the ordinance. He encouraged Mr. Franklin to hear the community saying they supported the ordinance. He asked Mr. Franklin how many he needed to hear from. Mr. Franklin answered the majority and there were 22,000 citizens. He said they put each member of Council in office and asked of the Mayor that the public be made aware of who voted against the ordinance if it were not passed. Don Armegon Mr. Armegon of the Westwood Baptist Church saying he was present speaking for the membership of his church and on their behalf and in their regard. He said he had been observing the ordinance for some time and and felt the greatest debate of the content of the ordinance was whether or not an ordinance was needed. He said the ordinance stemmed from the thought that laws do not legislate morality; but he said if laws did not legislate morality, what did they do. He said every law of every kind has its origin in the word of God. He said they were not asking Council to close the bars and the lounges; that was not the issue and it had already been stated that the ordinance would not do that nor put people out of work. He felt the majority of the people wanted Council to help people clean those places up and that the majority of the people of Fort Walton Beach wanted some moral legislative, something delegated somewhere to put a stop to the continued depth this was going to. He said if it were not simple enough at the Council meeting, it would be simple enough at the polling booth at the next election. Charles Minyard Charles Minyard representing the Greater Fort Walton Beach Ministerial Association who had met on April 21 to share their concerns on two issues one being the anti-nudity ordinance and submitted the signatures of some of those ministers saying they were in agreement with the anti- nudity ordinance. 282 Randall Bride Hank Owens Jim Elledge Fred Smith 4-26-82 Randall Bride said he was new to the City and that he didn't believe people there in the meeting represented the whole majority of the community; he agreed this was an important moral question - the question of imposing the moral standards of. others or a group of others; he said you could legislate morality but there were limits and bounds that could encroach upon the individual freedom of each person. He felt when things like that were done it violates the principles of America. He did not believe in