I’ve been hearing a lot about Mayor White’s push to shut down adult-oriented businesses over the past week or so as it became increasingly apparent that it’s really happening, yet I didn’t post about it or actually give the whole issue much thought.

Well, it’s time to write about it and indeed give it attention. This is big for Houston business and general city protocol in general. It’s no secret that nearly every major city in the country has strips clubs and adult-oriented bookstores, etc., but it seems that people now more than ever are talking about how these places of businesses affects the metropolis’ image/reputations and if they compromise the morals of patrons and non-patrons alike.

Personally, I have to say as I get older in years now, I’m more for this than against it. I don’t like the idea of people losing their means of earning a living, but White’s done a good job so far of improving our city’s image and cleaning up certain areas. This goes along side by side with those previous efforts and I think we’ll see similar, positive results with less strip clubs and what not throughout our urban-plex. (I can feel the flaming coming…) :-p

Fellow Houstonians; are you for or against this? Neutral? Voice your opinion via the comments link at the bottom of this post.

Matt Stiles has a done a great article about the shutting down of adult biz at chron.com, I’d like to cite his writing to further inform y’all of what is happening…

Privately, industry officials said they think the city’s crackdown is unfair, noting that they are lawful businesses that contribute millions of dollars to the local economy through employment and sales taxes.

Some also decry that all such businesses are linked together in one ordinance.

They see a distinction between adult cabaret clubs, which require multiple permits because their businesses depend on liquor and food sales, from modeling studios and spas, some of which police say are nothing more than fronts for prostitution.

Those distinctions have not been important to elected officials and police, who plan to begin enforcement as soon as next week.

“The sole purpose of this notice is to clarify the City of Houston’s legal authority and intent to enforce ordinance provisions governing sexually oriented business enterprises beginning immediately,” the letter reads. “This notice is not subject to reconsideration or administrative recourse.”

Employees and owners could face arrest on a Class A misdemeanor charge punishable by up to a year in jail and a $4,000 fine. The city also may seek civil injunctions forcing closures.

Jett called the letter a “courtesy.”

“We would much rather them comply, and let them know that the city is dead serious about this,” he said. “We’re not saying they can’t operate. We’re just saying they need to move.”

Chronicle reporters Alexis Grant and Chase Davis contributed to this story.

I was listening to the Roula and Ryan morning radio show on KRBE this morning and it was a rather enjoyable edition. The staff had their Moms in the studio due to Mother’s Day coming up this weekend and one of the topics was remembering places in Houston that aren’t around anymore.

I’m a nut for nostalgia so of course my interested was sparked; particularly when Astroworld came up. I had never been able to attend Astroworld due to my not being in TX during its prime years, but I’ve heard so many of my native Houstonians friends speak highly of it and how it truly was a major H-Town landmark.

Ryan Chase said he looked up some Astroworld sites through Google and came up with a ton of fan sites with old photos, etc. So, I went ahead and did the same and read some fantastic content about the park’s history, ownerships, and what might happen with the land now.

Here are the best site I found regarding Astroworld, the park that almost everyone loved so much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Flags_Astroworld
http://www.mikerobinson.net/oldsfaw.htm
http://www.oldastroworld.com
http://sixflagshouston.com
http://saveastroworld.com

Well, it’s official now - Houston teens 17 and under now have to be off the streets by 11pm at the latest. If you’re regular here at Clutch City Daily, you’ll remember me writing about this a week or so ago.

I have to say that I lean more to the opposing side of this new law because I don’t believe it’ll help reduce incidents and what not. Honestly, stuff’s gonna happen and kids are going to be out late. This energy and effort should, in my opinion, be put into increased patrol and dispersion of knowledge to youths about gang consequences, etc.

What are your thoughts on this? I’m particularly interested in hearing what parents have to say about the city. Keep in mind that there have been children picked up for curfew violation because they were biking to school early in the morning. This could possibly get out of hand (?) Perhaps the solution is more exceptions written into this law.

Nights got a little shorter for most teenagers following changes to the city’s curfew passed Wednesday.
Children under 17 must be off the streets by 11 p.m. on weeknights instead of the previous midnight rule, under revisions to the curfew ordinance approved by the City Council. It takes effect immediately.
“On school nights, you should be at home asleep and doing your schoolwork,” said Mayor Bill White. “Unless you’re working or working on some sort of school project, you don’t need to be running around on the streets after 11 o’clock.”
The ordinance includes existing exceptions for teenagers who are accompanied by a parent, traveling to work, participating in events sponsored by a school, government, church group or sports organization, or involved in an emergency.
All others now are prohibited from being on the streets after 11 p.m. on weeknights and midnight on weekends, including during summer months when school is not in session.
The previous curfew had been in place since 1991 and applied to children under 18, setting the deadline at midnight every night.
The midnight curfew still stands on Friday and Saturday nights, as well as on the eve of holidays.

Several parents said they support the new rules, though most said they preferred the law also apply to 17-year-olds.

“I think it’s awesome that they’re getting strict on these kids,” said Jody Wilding, a Meyerland resident who has a 16-year-old son. “They have no business being out at 11 o’clock on a school night, I don’t care how old they are.”
The city’s curfew ordinance includes daytime restrictions when school is in session, requiring children under 17 to be off the streets from 9 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. The council made no changes to that rule.
Council members debated the issue for 40 minutes during Wednesday’s meeting before the panel approved the new limits 11-3. Ada Edwards, Addie Wiseman and Michael Berry voted against the measure.
We have now taken over the role of parents,” Berry said. “When we make it a crime to be outside your home, and not breach the peace, I have a big problem with that.” - chron.com