JI report suggests favorable results for town in strip club battle

The JI has an article by Alex Wood on the first day of the Masters Club v.  East Hartford preliminary injunction hearing.

From the sound of the article the judge is not particularly concerned with the motive of the town in creating new regulations. This would mean that Masters Club is sunk, since this is likely the entirety of their case, apart from a potential effort to show through testimony of local land owners that there is insufficient alternative means of communication.

From the article:

The judge asked more than once during Tuesday’s hearing whether Masters Club has considered applying to change the zoning of the Elks Club from I-2 to I-3 to permit development of the club.

Kim Coleman, the Bethany lawyer representing the club, cited several reasons she hasn’t done so, including the ban on alcohol sales in I-3 zones.

“I would not want to change to an I-3 because I could not serve alcohol,” she said.

An issue Garfinkel didn’t clearly resolve Tuesday is whether he will consider the town’s motives for the changes in the zoning regulations.

Coleman maintains that the real purpose of the regulations is to block new sexually oriented establishments, not to reduce their “secondary effects.” She cited testimony Kayser gave in a “deposition” that the PZC changed the zoning regulation to make it constitutional.

“Is that bad?” Garfinkel asked.

“That’s a classic case of a laudatory motive rather than an illicit motive,” the judge added.

This is pure speculation so far, but we’ll see what reports come out today. Maybe I’ll even get a statement, though I wouldn’t count on one until tomorrow evening.