A Maricopa County Superior Court Judge will decide Monday whether or not a Mesa couple will be allowed to expand their tattoo business into North Tempe, near the intersection of Scottsdale Road and Weber Drive.
The business owners, Tom and Elizabeth Preston, feel they are being unfairly targeted by the North Tempe Neighborhood Association, which appealed the city’s decision to grant them a land use permit in June of 2007 on the grounds that their shop could attract crime and lower property values. The case made its way to the city council, which voted unanimously to keep the Prestons’ tattoo parlor out of North Tempe.
Association President Darlene Justus said the tattoo parlor, which is moving in next door to an adult bookstore and a bail bonds business, could create a clustering effect that drives down property values and keeps family-oriented businesses out.
“Our concern is about having too many of the same type of business in the same place, which keeps other businesses from moving in,” Justus said.
The clustering of adult-oriented businesses in that area, she said, has kept family-oriented businesses, including a pet shop and an ice cream parlor that closed this year, from thriving because people are afraid to take their families there.
In May, a Maricopa Superior Court Judge overturned the decision, claiming the city had no right to grant a permit and take it away. But the city is appealing that ruling, saying neighbors should be allowed to appeal the granting of a land use permit.
“The permit was only conditionally granted,” said City Attorney Andrew Ching. “[The neighbors] had 10-15 days to appeal the decision, and their appeals were timely.”
But Carrie Sitren, a Goldwater Institute attorney representing the Prestons, said they are being targeted by nosy neighbors and the city council based on false assumptions.
“It was really an arbitrary decision based on stereotypes,” Sitren said of the council’s unanimous ruling. “Stereotypes are not supposed to be a factor [in a council decision].”
Sitren said the North Tempe Neighborhood Association initially objected to the tattoo parlor’s presence because of the perception that it could attract crime to the area, a stance it has since shied away from.
“Perceptions have changed,” Sitren said. “[Having tattoos] is not taboo anymore.”
Gary Olsen, a Tempe resident who works at a window and door company, went to city hall to see a hearing officer the same day the Prestons were there.
Olsen said he was offended when he heard representatives of the North Tempe Neighborhood Association speak out against the tattoo parlor. Some of the representatives, including owners of neighboring businesses, said they were reluctant to hire people with tattoos.
“I kind of took offense at the way they stereotyped people with tattoos,” Olsen said. “If I was a paying customer at their business, and they saw my tattoo, would they reject me? No, they would take my money.”
Although the Superior Court ruled in their favor, the Prestons have not been able to proceed because the city is appealing the decision.
Ching said the ruling sets a dangerous precedent because it does not give neighbors or the city the opportunity to appeal a decision to grant land use, essentially allowing any business to be established anywhere if it can get an initial approval from a hearing officer. It may also keep businesses that have been denied the permit from making appeals as well.
“If an appeal is the same as a revocation, and the shoe is on the other foot, I’m not sure how a business can appeal a decision to deny the permit,” Ching said.
The Prestons could not be reached for comment.
Reach the reporter at derek.quizon@asu.edu
