Housing Discrimination Complaint Dismissed
Red Light District Adult Superstore Out of Compliance
Housing Discrimination Complaint: SAPOA v. City of Salisbury
“The issues for investigation were whether the City of Salisbury’s practice of challenging the legality of multifamily structures, and requiring the conversion of some structures back to single-family homes, has a disparate impact on minorities and has the effect of denying or making housing unavailable for minorities.
Based on the evidence obtained during the investigation, HUD has determined that no reasonable cause exists to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred. Accordingly, HUD has completed its administrative processing of this complaint under the Act, and the compliant is hereby dismissed.”
Conclusion:
“Based on the evidence analyzed in this case, the Department finds there is no reasonable cause to believe that the Respondents’ (City) practice had a disparate impact on African-Americans or other racial minorities”
Red Light District Superstore Out of Compliance
On December 11, 2013, the City of Salisbury conducted an inspection of the Red Light District Superstore. The inspection revealed that 25% of the usable floor space of the facility is being used for display of “adult entertainment” material. The Red Light District has 2 options:
Make improvements to the facility to come into compliance
Appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals
If the required corrections are not made by January 9, 2014, the owners of the Red Light District will receive a municipal infraction of $500.00 a day until the property come into compliance.
Mayor Ireton said, “On the SAPOA complaint, we have always known that city had no racial bias in discussing the conversion of non-conforming use properties back to single family dwellings. This issue, and the ongoing discussion of revitalization of our neighborhoods will continue. The amount of money that SAPOA has spent to claim bias by the city is incredible, though not anywhere near the amount of money some landlords are making on non-conforming rentals.”
On the Red Light District, the city continues to be vigilant in making sure the facility is compliant. That vigilance will continue. Based on city research, businesses of this type have consistently found a way to skirt municipal law. That is the case when doing a simple online Google search and is indicative of many cases up and down the eastern seaboard.”
6 comments:
OK Jimmy, what about the SIGN you screamed so loud about????? Interesting how that has been ignored in your statement.
interesting about the case with the housing. did not know if you were aware but two members of the board of zoning appeals are gone after last years debacle over this very issue. havent heard anyone refering to these removals. i guess since this appeal failed it is back to attacking these multy family houses
I thought "up to 25%" was allowed by ordinance... So, if it's at 25%, they are in compliance. This is as bogus as selling the business a license and then not letting them put up a sign!
Jimmy thinks the mannequins are "adult entertainment materials". What a loser!
Anonymous said...
interesting about the case with the housing. did not know if you were aware but two members of the board of zoning appeals are gone after last years debacle over this very issue. havent heard anyone refering to these removals. i guess since this appeal failed it is back to attacking these multy family houses
December 24, 2013 at 10:22 AM
You obviously don't live in the city and pay city taxes. By the way you should have stayed in school long enough to learn how to spell.
Guess the store is not stocking the products favored by the administration. And the duck call section is too large!
If they had opened on the plaza the store would have gone out of business already.
Post a Comment