Yesterday's Shreveport Times featured a large ad for Hustler Hollywood opening on Nov. 18. The ad appeared on same page below the ad for WK and Holy Cross Church. Wow!!
The ad also appeared in today's (Mon.) paper. The ad will probably run daily through the grand opening.
While many in Shreveport are upset, as in very upset, about this new retail store, Shreveport's city attorney is apparently not concerned about revisions of the SOB (Sexually Oriented Business) ordinance.
Lattier made the TV news after his comments at the Monday (Oct. 24) work session during discussion of the Hustler Hollywood retail location that will soon be opening in west Shreveport.
While explaining the city's sexually oriented business (SOB) ordinance, Lattier became very animated and stated that the city was going to get that establishment if it was, in fact, an SOB. Listening to him, audience members wondered if he had become an auxiliary police officer or maybe a Shreveport Police Department snitch on sexually oriented products.
During that discussion, Lattier's paramour Councilwoman Tabatha Taylor led the morality crusade saying that this type of retail establishment was unwelcome in any district in the city. Her minister Councilman James Green, led the amen chorus that included council members Alan Jackson and Jerry Bowman, Jr.
Lattier's "SOB, go to hell" sermon lasted all of one day.
At the council's regular meeting on Tues. (Oct. 25) Lattier withdrew from the council agenda two proposed amendments to the city's SOB ordinance.
Lattier had been under pressure to tighten the SOB ordinance to preclude the opening of another Hustler Hollywood type store in the city and his actions were quite surprising.
Lattier did not offer any explanation for his actions. And he did not say if any other amendments would in the future be offered by his office to the SOB ordinance. And no council members questioned why the amendments were being withdrawn.
These amendments could have been adopted at the next meeting of the council, which will be a combined administrative conference/regular meeting on Monday Nov. 7 -- the day before the primary. No doubt there would have been much public comments on that day and discussion by the council on anything dealing with the SOB.
Hmmmm.
Did Lattier not want public comments, council discussion, and council vote on the SOB amendments the day before the primary for a reason?
Did Taylor, Green, and/or Jackson not want these controversial matters to be front and center on that day? Jackson is on the Tuesday ballot, but not Taylor or Green, who are unopposed. Jackson has blindly followed Taylor and Green on his council votes.
Did the mayor not want any extended council meeting in chambers full of Shreveport voters the day before his paper is to be graded by the voters?
Was Lattier throwing in the towel on what could be a controversial legal issue since he is mostly likely in the last 60 days of employment by the city? (Unless Perkins is re-elected, there is no doubt Lattier will no longer serve as city attorney.)
So much for Lattier's unexplained actions on Tuesday.
Lattier knows that he will not have a job as city attorney unless Adrian Perkins is reelected. One wonders if he is looking ahead for potential clients with his decisions as city attorney during the balance of Perkins' term.