Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Kevin Bacon, Thou Art Avenged: Dance the Night Away (Finally) at Arizona's San Tan Flat!
When we last checked in at San Tan Flat, a family restaurant in Pinal County, Arizona, county officials had invoked an anachronistic ordinance to ban outddor dancing at the popular steak joint.
It was the subject of this Drew Carey Project video at reason.tv, dubbed Dance Ban: Footloose in Arizona:
Well, here's some great news, via The Arizona Republic:
Pinal County Superior Court Judge William O'Neil overturned a decision from the county Board of Supervisors that said the country-Western-themed restaurant was operating an illegal dance hall by allowing patrons to dance to live music on its back patio....
The saga of San Tan Flat drew national attention, prompting commentary from actor Drew Carey and conservative Washington Post columnist George Will. The case also received several comparisons to the 1984 Kevin Bacon film Footloose, in which a small town bans rock music and dancing.
At the time we released the video, one of the owners of San Tan Flat told the East Valley Tribune, "'This adds one more voice, and I think Drew Carey has a credible voice and he speaks with some degree of credibility to the public,' said Dale Bell, who owns San Tan Flat with his son, Spencer."
All of us at reason are glad to see this incredibly stupid injustice made right—and proud of our role in helping it happen.
|5.7.08 @ 4:07PM|#
I say, we can dance, we can dance
Everything out of control
We can dance, we can dance
We're doing it from wall to wall
We can dance, we can dance
Everybody look at your hands
We can dance, we can dance
Everybody takin' the cha-a-a-ance
Safety dance
Is it safe to dance
Is it safe to dance
S-s-s-s A-a-a-a F-f-f-f E-e-e-e T-t-t-t Y-y-y-y
Safe, dance!
Naga Sadow|5.7.08 @ 4:08PM|#
Sometimes I wonder if Kevin Bacon even remembers Footloose . . . *sigh*
Mike Laursen|5.7.08 @ 4:12PM|#
What ever happened to Men at Work?
If I recall correctly, the lead singer showed up on an episode of
Scrubs not too long ago.
|5.7.08 @ 4:19PM|#
Yippee! We are still losing the freedom war, but it's nice to score some points once in a while.
Tym|5.7.08 @ 4:19PM|#
Wrong "Men" -- Safety Dance was Men Without Hats. And truly
annoying.
True, just as annoying as Men at Work, or as I called it Men at
Jerk.
Naga Sadow|5.7.08 @ 4:20PM|#
My bad, sixstring. I blame those infomercials selling 80's hits for my mistake.
|5.7.08 @ 4:22PM|#
I think Drew Carey has a credible voice
Can't say I ever really expected to read that anywhere. Still, if
[insert Congresscritter here] is credible on [insert issue here],
then then why the hell not?
|5.7.08 @ 4:36PM|#
I just can't get the image of Dana Carvey's Churchlady looking
at the name of the restaurant, and, considering the topic was that
unclean activity, dancing, having her say something to the effect,
"Dancing? Could it be...SATAN?"
There's a joke in there somewhere. I think I'm done with my
terrible '80s flashback.
The Wine Commonsewer|5.7.08 @ 6:30PM|#
It was the subject of this Drew Carey Project video at
reason.tv, dubbed Dance Ban: Footloose in Arizona
Just forwarded this to everyone I know in Arizona but I didn't
realize that the link does not go to the video in question, it just
goes to the main page. It will be confusing because most people
cannot see the embedded video in their email.
The Wine Commonsewer|5.7.08 @ 7:38PM|#
In the video the implication is that there is some unknown
sinister force at work trying to put the place out of business so
that some unnamed parties can pick it up at fire sale prices.
However, the issue is NOISE not dancing. If you read the IJ case
summary you'll figure out pretty quick that the county should never
have issued a permit for an outdoor dance hall that was less than a
quarter mile from people's houses. A your right to play live
music for dumb people ends at your property line sort of
thing.
Once the fit hit the shan the county tried to do a backdoor
revocation of the conditional use permit (or whatever they call it
over there) and failing that has obviously tried to nitpick the
place out of business to make up for their error in judgment.
It appears that San Tan Flat is in compliance with a pretty strict
noise ordinance and by rights I would think that should be the end
of it. 60 decibels at night ought to be quiet enough for the
neighbors.
|5.7.08 @ 9:03PM|#
If you go back that far with Kevin Bacon movies, we might as
well bring up his role as an Omega pledge in Animal
House.
Thank you sir, may I have another?
|5.8.08 @ 1:40AM|#
Ya knwo why 7th day adventists ban premarital sex?
'cause it might lead to dancin...
cgee|5.8.08 @ 7:45AM|#
Strange that Pinal County, Arizona can resolve their public dancing issues, but NYC still prohibits dancing in nearly all bars and restaurants.
|5.8.08 @ 1:06PM|#
Ha. This is about 20 minutes from my house, and quite the popular joint. Maybe I'll check it out now that this stupid dancing ban is up.
|5.11.08 @ 6:55PM|#
I was in court on May 7th when Judge O'Neil made his ruling
concerning the San Tan Flat violation of Pinal County Zoning
Ordinances. Even though Judge O'Neil ruled in favor of Dale Bell,
Judge O'Neil spent a significant amount of time speaking directly
to Dale Bell about how the Judge understood the plight of the
neighbors near Mr. Bell's establishment, and how Judge O'Neil would
be appalled if the County ever allowed an establishment such as Mr.
Bell operates, anywhere near the Judge's home in rural Pinal
County. Judge O'Neil talked of individual property rights, and the
exercise of those property rights as a 'balancing act', rubbing
together his colliding fists to help demonstrate his point.
It is this 'balancing act' of individual property rights that I
would like to address in response to the various articles and
editorials that have been published concerning this conflict over
the past 2 years. The primary point I would like to discuss is the
very important issue that Judge O'Neil pointed out in court, and
that is the balancing act of property rights between property
owners.
On one side we find Mr. Bell, operating an establishment that he
claims he built following all of the required guidelines and
procedures, claiming he has honored all of his commitments, making
claims of how good his business is for the 'community', all with
what he claims are within his rights as a property owner, and that
the County is trying to 'ban dancing' in Pinal county.
On another side we find the surrounding property owners, who claim
that every Friday and Saturday nights, holiday's nights, and many
other nights in between, that Mr. Bell takes over our properties
for his own use, blasting unbearable loud noise across our
properties and into our homes, shines glaring commercial signage
across our properties into the windows of our homes, casts a
blanket of smoke across our properties from the marshmallow
roasting fires fouling the air our families and livestock breath,
and then nightly discharges inebriated patrons onto our
neighborhood streets, patrons whom routinely choose our
neighborhood streets to avoid encounters with law enforcement with
no consideration for the families they put at risk.
Unlike TV, radio, or the printed media where when you are offended,
or tire of it, or find the timing inconvenient, then you can simply
switch it off, set it aside, or not buy it in the first place; but
here in our neighborhood, only Mr. Bell gets to choose what music
and speech we will hear, blasting into our yards, our homes, our
lives, night after night, like it or not, want it or not, only Dale
Bell gets to choose when and what will be heard for all of the
surrounding property owners.
Now the predominance of the reporting and editorial about this
conflict has focused around some injustice being perpetrated
against Mr. Bell, which he has spun in the media as an attack on
everyone's right to dance. The candid truth is, we could care less
about people dancing in Mr. Bell's establishment. I don't know a
one among us who doesn't like to dance. Mr. Bell, spun through his
current proxies - the various media, would have us surrender our
land, our homes, our dreams, our hopes, to the likes of the blatant
recurring trespass from Mr. Bell, that we, Mr. Bell's neighbors,
somehow hold some odd notions of responsible property ownership and
appropriate civil behavior, that we have been duped into some kind
of flawed thinking about our plight in the face of a bully, that
the idea that we might cry foul is somehow wrong, and that it is
somehow inappropriate to plead with our elected government to right
the wrong, and restore the peace to our neighborhood.
If you remember, we all watched on television as a group of PSYOP
soldiers played deafening rock music, 24 hours a day, over
loudspeakers that ringed the Vatican Embassy compound where General
Noriega had taken refuge. The siege continued until General Manuel
Noriega couldn't take the 'constant bombardment of the music'
anymore and surrendered. In Iraq, in Fallujah's darkened, empty
streets, U.S. troops blast AC/DC's "Hell's Bells" and other rock
music full volume from a huge speaker, hoping to grate on the
nerves of this Sunni Muslim city's gunmen and give a laugh to
Marines along the front line. That is Psychological Warfare
Operations.
Granted San Tan Ranches is not a war zone (although some of your
readers would like to make it one), and Mr. Bell is not by any
stretch of the imagination, a hoard of terrorists bent on killing
us all. However, much of the editorial opinion and reporting so far
would have us all believe that when our nation's founding fathers
were crafting the Declaration of Independence, that when Thomas
Jefferson carefully scribed the concept "We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these
are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.", that we all must
have missed the footnote lay hidden until Mr. Bell came along, that
holds an exception - that Mr. Bell somehow enjoys greater privilege
over everyone else. Putting the pun aside, it was this very concept
of privilege that our founding fathers found to be so
objectionable, so much so, that they were willing to risk
everything to protect against it. With the 9th amendment of the US
Constitution, the premise of Mr. Bell's extraordinary privilege
that some of the editorials would try to convince us all of, is
clearly dashed by "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained
by the people." Mr. Bell's rights clearly end where exercising his
rights deny the rights of his neighbors, and that is exactly what
Mr. Bell has been doing, continues to do, and is doing so with the
support of the media, and particularly unfortunate for our
Republic, 'the press' - the very place our founding fathers created
extraordinary constitutional protections in order to make sure the
exchange of ideas would be forever assured.
The elected and appointed government officials in Pinal County, and
the State of Arizona, as agents 'of the people, by the people, for
the people' have an absolute obligation to protect the rights of
'all of its citizens', setting aside prejudice, special interests,
and all other distractions that might interfere with protection of
freedom and the fair application of justice, not just for Mr. Bell,
but for all of its citizens. Mr. Bell has rights, and so far, the
scale for the rights proposition has leaned heavily in Mr. Bell's
favor, entirely at the expense of the rights of his neighbors. Mr.
Bell is not entitled to the unencumbered use of our neighborhood
properties, to use as he currently chooses to, constructively
seizing them from us for his own enjoyment and enrichment, and the
County through its actions or inaction, cannot surrender our
properties to Mr. Bell or allow to continue, Mr. Bell's nightly
trespass. That would effectively constitute an unlawful application
of eminent domain, the taking of our properties, and handing them
over to Mr. Bell, having denied our neighborhood property owners
their due legal recourse, compensation and treatment under the law.
The County is obliged to restore the "balance" Judge O'Neil
referred to in court.
As for the editorial staffs of the press, I say to you: It's time
for you and your readers to face up to your own prejudices and
misconceptions instead of relying on the propaganda fed to you by
Mr. Bell, and recognize the real injustice that is occurring, the
real tragedy in our community, the damage Mr. Bell has inflicted on
the trust in the press that our founding fathers recognized as so
crucial to the survival of our Republic. Mr. Bell has used your
publications for his own selfish propaganda. Regardless how Mr.
Bell has portrayed our neighbors in the San Tan Foothills, there
are good, hardworking and honorable people here, caring people, and
mostly people trying their best to help our community. It would
sure be refreshing to see the media, and especially the editorial
staffs of the press recognize the real injustice, and finally come
to the aid of the neighborhood under siege in the San Tan
Foothills.
Respectfully,
Bob Dotson
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245