CITY SHOULD SHUT SEXUAL-ACTIVITY CLUB, REPEAL LAW ALLOWING OTHERS.

Byline: Don Schultz

JUST when you think you've heard it all, something will come up that will make you wonder what's going on in the minds of our local lawmakers.

I would guess that not too many Los Angeles residents are aware of a relatively obscure city ordinance that legalizes ``sexual encounter establishments.'' Section 12.70 B 12, Article 2, of the city's Planning and Zoning Code outlines the types of sexual activity allowed by law in Los Angeles and describes, in graphic detail, ``specified anatomical areas'' and ``specified sexual activities.''

Keeping in mind that this is a family newspaper, I will limit my shock and outrage by just pointing out that fondling, normal or perverted sex acts and masturbation are just a few accepted practices allowed under this ordinance. We should also keep in mind that this ordinance would not have become law without the action of our City Council, mayor and the city attorney.

Because this ordinance became law in 1978, we can't blame or give credit to the current mayor, City Council or city attorney for its existence. Given the legitimate health concerns now about AIDS, however, I believe very strongly that it is time to rescind this law.

The general public is far more exposed to the dangers of AIDS today than in 1978.

The Los Angeles City Council will have an opportunity to review this ordinance very soon, when a case will be brought before them dealing with The Barracks, 4621 Santa Monica Blvd., in Los Angeles. This place is being operated, without proper city permits, as a sexual encounter establishment, much to the dismay of nearby residents.

The residents contacted Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg, who did nothing but turn a deaf ear to their concerns and has allowed this operation to flourish, without the proper city permits, for more than six months. The residents' concerns regarding this operation are shared by the Los Angeles Police Department. Dozens of letters and hundreds of signatures on a petition, in protest of this operation, were presented at public hearings earlier this year, which ended with mixed results.

The zoning administrator initially, and very wisely, denied the request for a variance to create the business. That decision was appealed, and the Board of Zoning Appeals, not so wisely, chose to overturn the administrator's denial.

This forced the residents to appeal to the Planning and Land Use Committee, which is a subcommittee of the full City Council. The hearing for the latest appeal was Tuesday. This gave Councilwoman Goldberg the opportunity to extol ``the virtues'' of this club that she says will ``offer an opportunity for safe sex education (and) HIV prevention, and it would provide a way to reach men who otherwise may not identify themselves as gay or go to gay bars.''

The committee chose to uphold the approval of the variance despite the fact that this club is in violation of a city ordinance, because it is located within 500 feet of a residential zone, and despite the excellent testimony of nearby residents, their attorney and the LAPD.

While it is a sure bet that the attorneys for the adult entertainment industry will argue First Amendment rights when this case goes before the full City Council, we are hopeful that wiser heads will prevail. The continuing moral decay of our city and the relentless attack on our quality of life are rapidly becoming nonissues, and our legislators must do more to change this.

The City of Los Angeles is at the crossroads. Our lawmakers can take responsibility for their actions and those of their predecessors or face the reality that residents of areas who want to control their own destiny can create their own city and no longer be in the morally decaying Los Angeles.

The secession movement may have started in the San Fernando Valley, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that there is general public unrest throughout our city.

The Barracks is not located in the San Fernando Valley but, if such an operation is allowed to exist anywhere in Los Angeles, it should be considered a personal affront to all of us throughout the city.

What is at stake here is not a case of being insensitive to the needs of some, but rather of protecting the moral integrity of the multitude.