The Nanny State alert: Sandy Jerstad “Legislator” is now Sandy Jerstad “Naughtiness Inspector”
Senator Jerstad is on a mission. To make a statement. To expand government. To take an adult oriented business ordinance statewide, because communities can’t take care of random naughtiness by themselves. .
Complete with inspectors, too.
SB 98: An act to regulate establishments in the business of providing obscene material.
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to regulate establishments in the business of providing obscene material.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That chapter 22-24 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
No establishment may sell, distribute, or use obscene material or provide obscene material without obtaining a license from the county in which the establishment is located. The establishment shall submit an application on a form prescribed by the county along with the license fee. The license fee shall be established by the county. The county may grant the license if the establishment has met the requirements of sections 2 and 3 of this Act. The license expires one year from the date of issuance. The annual renewal fee shall be established by the county.
Section 2. That chapter 22-24 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
The Department of Health shall inspect a commercial establishment seeking licensure pursuant to section 1 of this Act. No license may be issued or renewed until the establishment has passed an inspection by the Department of Health. The applicant for initial licensure or renewal shall submit the inspection report to the county.
Section 3. That chapter 22-24 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
No licensee may operate in any area that lies within one thousand feet from the facilities and grounds of any school, church, child welfare agency, public park, public playground, or public pool, including the facilities and grounds itself. No establishment licensed pursuant to section 1 of this Act may be closer than two hundred fifty feet from any street.
Section 4. That chapter 22-24 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
No licensee may operate between the hours of twelve midnight and eight a.m. of the following day. In addition, no licensee may operate on Sunday.
Section 5. That chapter 22-24 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
No new establishment for the sale, distribution, or use of obscene material may be constructed unless a permit is obtained by the municipality in which the establishment is to be located. If the location of the establishment is not within the boundary of any municipality, a permit shall be obtained from the county in which the establishment is to be located.
Why is it that whenever someone does something a legislator doesn’t like, they spill forth legislative prohibitions and expand government at a rate a sick dog soiling the kitchen tile would be jealous of?
Sandy Jerstad doesn’t like Olivia’s “Adult Superstore” in Tea. I get that. You know, I’m all for keeping that which is not for children out of their hands. As parents, it is not just our responsibility, but our duty. And then you have the people, like Sandy Jerstad, who go overboard. Way, way overboard.
What’s the fiscal impact of Jerstad’s measure to make sure that peek-a-boo negligees and stuff that’s also sold on walmart shelves are driven from the community? What’s the impact of setting up an entirely new level of bureaucracy at not just one, but two levels of government?
And because of a few products collected in one place. Really, we have to ask (and should ask her at the next crackerbarrel) Which product does she specifically object to?Negligees? Books with descriptions of sexual situations? Videos depicting nudity? Magazines depicting nudity? Personal (ahem…) lubricants?
Because according to this measure, it looks like anyplace offering those types of things are going to be faced with licensure, 250 foot setbacks, and 1000 foot limitations from any school, church, child welfare agency, public park, public playground, or public pool, including the facilities and grounds itself.
What’s the problem with that? Because of how her law is written, Jerstad wants to require licensure and all the setback limitations on Wal-mart (naughty underwear, movies, personal lubricants) , many drug stores (personal lubricants, magazines, etcetera.), video stores (racy movies, duh), convenience stores (Movies, magazines), Victoria’s Secret (naughty, naughty underwear), most bookstores (books), movie theatres (Movies), and the public library (books).
PLUS, she’s going to prohibit any of those establishments from operating between the hours of twelve midnight and eight a.m. or Sunday.
I think there’s some business owners who might have a problem with that kind of government intrusion.
Just as with the argument against telling people they can’t allow smoking in their business, if the product is legal to be sold in South Dakota, it IS legal. If you don’t like the product, you can at least try to ban the product.
But if the store is operating within legal guidelines, as apparently this one is, and selling products legally able to be sold in South Dakota (as apparently these are) changing the rules mid-stream, and setting up TWO new levels of bureaucracy to address it seems more than a bit much. Good gosh, it seems almost a hysterical level of response. And one that has no place in a society where we supposedly value free speech and expression.
I have to go back to what one blogger in the area had said on the topic previously:
Earlier this summer, an adult store, make that “super” store, was opened just a short mile outside of Tea on the way to Interstate 29. Much protest ensued from the locals over Olivia’s, which touted itself as a good, upstanding, reputable business that would be beneficial to the local economy. It’s actually a sister store to its Sioux Falls counterpart, Annabelle’s.
A lot of people were making uneducated, emotional statements about how the store would ruin the community, hurt their children, and among other things, encourage drunken driving (apparently from the potential customers who would drive to the 24-hour store while 3 sheets to the wind during odd hours of the night). Lincoln county, and the city of Tea, currently have no restrictions or regulations on these types of adult businesses, so legally, everything has been done by the book, and the owner/manager has been fairly accommodating to local suggestions (he voluntarily changed the building color from bright purple to egg shell white, and changed his sign out front to display “Olivia’s” in large letters, instead of “Adult”).
and…
Olivia’s is one of those “bold” types of businesses. But a few weeks ago, something equally bold appeared in the same vicinity. Olivia’s is on the north side of 271st St, and on the south side of the road is a corn field. Directly across from Olivia’s, on the south side of the road, just between the corn field and the ditch, popped up what appeared to be a large, 12-foot wooden cross (which is conveniently the very first thing Olivia’s customers see as they exit the store). At first I thought it might have been something to do with the electrical or telephone lines, but after driving by again during my lunch break, it was unquestionably the instrument used by the Romans to crucify Jesus Christ.
and…
When I drive by the two symbols I thank God that I live in a country of free enterprise, and free speech. I thank God that I have another (better) option to look at besides the glaring adult superstore. I’m thankful as I drive through the middle of two very bold signs; one reminds me how fallen I am, along with the rest of mankind, and the other reminds me of how gracious God is, allowing me to be a member & participant in His eternal kingdom.
So, if you are a fellow disciple of Jesus, what are we to do with something like this? I think we ought to start by praying. Pray for the owner, workers and customers of the store, that they would encounter the one, true living God and be changed forever. Pray for those who put up the cross, the churches & Christians of this community, that they would be effective (not deflective) witnesses for the Prince of Peace.
A quiet, dignified solution that talks about leading by example. Not by government.
Maybe Sandy should take THAT example from her constituents, and not the mass hysteria that’s going to drive the public library out into a field in the middle of nowhere.
At the very least, Sandy should take off her nanny frock, and leave it with her softball bat at home.
(cleaned up from a previous version and edited, so I could use it at keloland.com -PP)
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Other sponsors include Senators Duenwald (R), Garnos (R), and Smidt (Orville)(R) and Representatives Miles (D), Hunt (R), and Nelson (R)
Seems to have bi-partisan support. If you are going to bash, bash them all.
i understand your arguments, pp. and again, as i say with the smoking ban stuff, let’s be careful about such a libertarian view of a completely legitimate power of the state. the states’ police power to regulate the health, safety, morals, and welfare of its citizens has been recognized from the beginning of our country.
does that mean that jerstad’s bill should be passed? i don’t know, yet. i’d like to read it, study the issue a little more.
the bigger problem is really with our runaway federal court system that has stolen the authority of local citizens to regulate places such as olivias. personally, i’d like to see the legislators and the citizens from the tea area focus their attention on congress’ duty to rein in these liberal judges. but like me, they probably feel helpless.
Yes, but it was jerstad’s bill. She said last summer that:
I have been thinking about the morality of several issues facing us locally and as a state since I returned from Pierre. One of the most recent issues pits our First Amendment rights against our sense of decency and what is right and good for families and communities.
Unfortunately for the community of Tea, which is in my district, and for Lincoln County, a business that deals in the sale of provocative, nasty and crude sexual materials in the name of “adult entertainment” has decided to settle in the neighborhood highly visible to all who travel to Tea on 271st Street.
At this time there are no zoning laws that would prevent this business from locating where it is. The man has a First Amendment right to his business.
Sadly, this sort of business often brings with it people who tend to stray outside the law such as gangs and drug users and is a stimulus for unlawful sexual activity. At the very best, it is a disgusting reminder of the dark side of life to all those who daily pass by, including families and children.
Sounds like she decided a while ago to go batshit crazy over a business selling K-Y and underwear all by herself.
The others who are along for the ride should be ashamed.
Lexrex –
I don’t disagree with the health and safety aspect. My point is that most of the stuff that is in places such as that are available in many, many other places in the community.
If it’s wrong for one private business to offer it, what about the others?
The problem with such measures is that there are often unintended consequences, such as requiring licensure of movie theaters and walmart along with the olivia’s.
from the encyclopedia britannica: Police Power: Power of a government to exercise reasonable control over people and property within its jurisdiction in the interest of general security, health, safety, morals, and welfare. It is generally regarded as one of the powers reserved to the states under the U.S. Constitution. In considering cases involving the exercise of police power, the courts have applied a doctrine called “balance of interests” to determine when the public’s right to health and well-being outweighs private or individual concerns.
and from the infamous, but correct on this issue, justice taney in the license cases: the common definition of police power has evolved to the power to govern, the power inherent in every sovereignty to control men and things under which authority the state may, within constitutional limitations, prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society and prescribe regulations to promote the public health, morals, safety, and order, and to add to the general public convenience, prosperity and welfare.
We’ve got a gas tax; how about a lube tax?
Or how about eliminating the sales tax on food and doubling the sales tax on all nooky-related products? (Hmm… then how to tax those edible undies….) 
7 & 8. You mean like when those people carry around those hideous fake pictures of chopped up fetuses and make little children look at them on street corners?
Next time that happens in RC, lr, do you think we should call the cops, or what?
don’t know, bf, and i don’t plan on answering right now, because it’d be nice to not drag every single debate on this blog toward a discussion of abortion-related politics.
#10, those pictures are hardly fake. They are reality which many people wish to ignore, like the Holocaust in Germany. Course, those pictures are fake too, right?
I thought this was going to be a Manny Steele, R, District 12, bill. At the Sioux Falls Chamber breakfast on January 4th he talked about his “S.O.B.” legislation, Sexually Orientated Business, that would create a big blanket to cover South Dakota and protect us from these businesses.
11. Well, good. That’s refreshing.
Thanks, lr.
The rest of the argument proceeds from there.
You either love liberty or you don’t.
I’m just sayin’.
Why did she and the other sponsors get the church involved or close targeted businesses on Sunday?
The way this is written you would think all sponsors of this bill or anyone prepared to vote for it would also vote for Rounds’ Bear Butte proposal.
And why not let these targeted businesses build next to churches! With gas prices such as they are Clergy could save on mileage by merely walking next door to proselytize. By allowing targeted businesses to operate on Sunday’s the entire church can walk next door to spread the Word.
I guess it is easier to blame a business for social break down instead of building the church by training members to knock on neighborhood doors.
Yeah, that’s right, Church members need to get out of their comfort zone and quit asking the government to protect them from sinners.
At what point do we stop kicking people out of the public square whether they are Christian or not.
PP…Just a bit of background info you seem to be missing. Olivia’s isn’t just a little “naughty” store. It also has 16 private viewing booths where patrons can discretely come and go. Need I paint a picture of the health and safety issues for you??
yes, bf, but don’t mistake liberty for license to do whatever you wish. liberty without limits is anarchy.
PP, what do you think about your buddy Big Boy being prime on this: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2008/Bills/HB1151P.htm
No forms to fill out, just banned. The problem isn’t protecting our kids, who can argue with that. It’s who gets to decide just how much nanny, and what is really offensive or not. I like KY Jelly on a cracker now and then.
I have a hard time believing that the ‘health and safety issues’ of adult stores are really the problem. With oil refineries and pipelines and smoking and one of the highest child death rates in the country and goodness knows what else, there are plenty of health and safety issues the legislators could stay busy with. But no. Session after session, we have to deal with pointless and idiotic sex bills. It’s like our legislature is populated by a hundred Helen Lovejoys. “Will someone please think of the children?” Ugh.
Republicans are usually against ‘nannyism’ unless it deals with sex. They they become the worst nannies of them all.
lexrex,
Whose morals? Yours? Mine? Ted Klaudt’s?
YouWho
As far as I know, public booths don’t present a health/safety danger. Do you have a health/safety report you can cite to back up your assertions?
and patti, there is plenty of proof that viewing booths and obscene materials draws a clientele that harms the community, with depressed real estate values and increased criminal activity.
sometimes states can abuse the police power, but when there is concrete proof of injury to the community and/or its citizens, it’s entirely legitimate for the state to exercise its authority to protect the health, safety, morals, and welfare of its citizens.
The Supreme Court has time and time again upheld the rights of communities to protect themselves from the secondary effects of Sexually Oriented Businesses. These secondary effects include 1)increased crime, 2)decline in property values and 3)urban blight. These effects are documented in what are called land use studies. There have been dozens of them conducted over the last thirty years. You can read a summary of them and the individual ones for seventeen states at these links:
http://www.communitydefense.org/cdcdocs/landuse/html/aclj.html
http://www.communitydefense.org/cdcdocs/landuse/secondaryeffects.html
Here are some quick summaries from the Supreme Court Cases:
http://www.communitydefense.org/cdcdocs/PCSOB/htm/PCSOB2ed_AppC.htm
SOB’s, also known as “adult businesses,” are subject to time, place, and manner regulations (as discussed below). See Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50 (1976); City of Renton v. Playtime Theatre, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986).
“Adult” use zoning laws may prohibit the location of defined SOB’s near private residences, schools, playgrounds, or places of worship. Such businesses may also be prohibited from locating near other such regulated uses. These laws incidentally effect sexually explicit speech activities by restricting location. However, they pass constitutional muster because they are aimed at preventing urban blight, crime, and depression of property values (the secondary consequences of such establishments). The intent of these laws is not to proscribe pornography. Only the time, place, and manner of the activity are regulated. See Young, 427 U.S. at 57-61; Renton, 475 U.S. at 928-933.
In Young, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Detroit zoning ordinance regulating the location of defined “adult” theatres by prohibiting them from locating within 1,000 feet of any two other regulated uses or within 500 feet of a residential area. A four-justice plurality found that the ordinance did not violate the First Amendment as an impermissible prior restraint, noting that a “city’s interest in attempting to preserve the quality of urban life is one that must be accorded high respect.” 427 U.S. at 71. In his oft-cited concurrence, Justice Powell focused on the interests of the city and the power to zone, noting the “zoning, when used to preserve the character of specific areas of a city, is perhaps ‘the most essential function performed by local government.’” 427 U.S. at 80 (Powell, J., concurring), quoting Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 13 (1974). Justice Powell analyzed the challenged ordinance under the four-part test of United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), and found that the ordinance was clearly based on a substantial governmental interest and implicated “First Amendment concerns only incidentally and to a limited extent.” Young, 427 U.S. at 73.
I really can go on and on and on with documentation. There is a ton of it out there that is documented. This is not “nanny state” legislation, but it is critical legislation to protect the rights of families and communities.
I appreciate Sen Jerstad’s intent, however, I think her bill is problematic on many counts. Most critically it doesn’t contain any definitions. HB 1151 seems to be a much better bill that will pass muster.
after further review, it looks as if jerstad’s bill is a little misguided, or at least unschooled.
manny steele’s bill is probably the one to go with. arizona recently passed similiar legislation, which i believe even passed muster with the lefties at the 9th circuit court of appeals.
Speaking of Nanny state measures, how about Dennis Schmidt’s SB88 proposal, PP?
there you go again, bf. you just can’t stay on topic, can you? however, i will bite.
i’m no huge fan of the sonogram bill, but i think it’s arguably within the police power of the state to pass laws to protect the health, safety, morals, and welfare of unborn human beings.
I have a basic problem with PP’s quote of a previous blogger on this subject:
“So, if you are a fellow disciple of Jesus, what are we to do with something like this? I think we ought to start by praying. Pray for the owner, workers and customers of the store, that they would encounter the one, true living God and be changed forever. Pray for those who put up the cross, the churches & Christians of this community, that they would be effective (not deflective) witnesses for the Prince of Peace.”
I AM a follower of Jesus Christ. I have worked for one of the most famous preachers in the world. And I HAVE been in Olivia’s, with my wife. We purchased products together that we will use IN THE PRIVACY OF OUR OWN BEDROOM!
Let’s not lump all the potential customers of an establishment such as Olivia’s in one basket. Following the same logic, we should outlaw gunshops, because they have sold guns to murderers.
People tend to go overboard about an issue because of some personal experience with it. Some of the biggest MADD supporters have lost loved ones to drunk drivers, for example. I think that all of these folks who want to put this type of shop out of business need to deal with their sexual repression issues on their own, and get out of the way of free enterprise.
3rd502nd:
A couple of things – The quote was more to illustrate that person’s point that that it is better to inspire others with your own actions than to try to outlaw legal and law abiding business activities that some people want to patronize.
The second? You could have made your own point without the second paragraph. Too much information, dude.
502nd, you weren’t working for Ted Haggard were you? If so, I’d hate to know what you and your wife bought that you are planning to use.
31. I thought “Nanny State” and subsequent government intrusiveness regarding sexual behavior was the topic, lr.
No?
Regarding sonograms, Schmidt says “Maybe they would think, ‘Well, maybe I’ll not go through with it.’ It’s their decision.”
My question is, if it’s their decision, why are you wanting to hassle them about it so much, Dennis?
I know you don’t like it that these things all tie together, lr, but the fact is, constitutionally, they do, you know?
no, bf, the post is about the role of the state in regulating obscenity and sen. jerstad’s bill.
and this is not, as pp says, about “trying to outlaw legal and law abiding business activities.” obscenity is not protected speech. it never has been.
pp, this one may not be a good bill, but you’re giving up the farm to protect a rotten egg, when you make statements like that.
36. “obscenity is not protected speech”
Someone should tell that to Dick Cheney.
Maybe Patrick Lehey?
What is “obscenity” anyway, lr?
PP, I think you’re missing a basic point.
When people in power, like Ms. Jerstad, have some issue they may have in their own life, they feel the need to project their “cause” onto the rest of us. That’s not the role of government. That’s called a monarchy, theocracy, etc.
I made the statement I made regarding why my wife and I were there to make the point that responsible adults do NOT need to be ashamed of what they might find or buy in Olivia’s. To be honest, some of the posts I’ve read in this string have reminded me of a bunch of junior high kids. Why can’t we be adults here? By acting like juveniles, people are creating the very environment that leads to this kind of crazy legislation. If we all acted liek adults, this wouldn’t be an issue.
Anony Muss, I don’t know who Ted Haggard is, I just moved back here. Your reference is meaningless to me.
3rd502nd – the issue you have with Sandy is what I have been writing about daily. Hence “the nanny state theme.”
39. I think 3rd502 is a either a liberated Christian or a Hindu. Either way, I like his style. What he’s basically saying is, “why should all of us have look at the world the same way as you pompous, self-righteous 25% (or less) do?
And the answer is, there is no good reason.
Bill, the “liberated Christian” title suits me well. Or “libertarian” also works. I just moved here from the same district in MN that elected a former Black-Panther Muslim to Congress. If people in SD think they have problems with politicians, wait until a Keith Ellison shows up on the scene.
PP – I agree. Sandy is sounding like a republican.