Georgia Woman Could Lose $30,000 After Local Government Denies Her Permit To Open Hair Salon
Despite meeting all the requirements, the Board of Commissioners in Clayton County made an arbitrary decision to deny Khalilah Few a conditional use permit to open her salon.
When Khalilah Few opened her salon, Creative Crowns Collective, in 2023, she didn't think her business savvy would put her at odds with the local government. But two years later, she now finds herself in a legal battle with Clayton County, Georgia.
After outgrowing her original studio space, Few signed a two-year lease for a new salon housed in an old barbershop in Jonesboro, a city in Clayton County, in March. She invested over $30,000 into the property and applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in April to open her salon. Despite meeting the legal requirements for a permit, the Clayton County Zoning Advisory Board and the Board of Commissioners denied Few's application in July.
Instead of the law, county officials cited a "saturation" of similar businesses in a 5-mile radius, arguing the salon would not "grow Clayton County smartly." Commissioner DeMont Davis, whose fourth district includes the new location of the salon, even noted that Few's plan "does align" with the county's economic development plan but still voted against it, saying Few's business was "just in the wrong area."
Few has filed a lawsuit against Clayton County, alleging violations of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Georgia Constitution. Jessica Bigbie, an attorney at the Institute for Justice (I.J.), which is representing Few, tells Reason that "nothing in the ordinance or the law says anything about smart growth being a basis to deny a permit."
Throughout the process, Few says county staff gave "vague" responses when asked about requirements and reasons for denial. She tells Reason the first time she heard about "oversaturation" was when she attended her meeting with the zoning advisory board. "What's frustrating and infuriating about this process is I asked questions, I directly asked, 'What are some reasons that this application can be denied?'" She says, she "wanted to be prepared."
Clayton County officials did not respond to Reason's request for comment.
Few's hurdles can be traced back to 2024, when Clayton County amended its municipal code and designated District 4, where the proposed salon is located, as a General Business Zoning District with a Business Corridor Overlay District. This overlay permits some businesses to open without a CUP while requiring one for others. Personal service establishments, such as dry cleaners or watch repair shops, typically do not require a CUP, whereas hair salons do.
The county's CUP criteria for District 4 appear arbitrary, as they treat similar businesses unevenly. Day cares and dance/music schools are permitted, but gyms and places of worship are conditional. Counterintuitively, even potentially hazardous companies, such as research labs, are permitted.
To get a CUP, applicants must meet with the Technical Review Committee, community residents, and the Zoning Advisory Group, then attend a final hearing before the County Board of Commissioners. The board considers the application's proper filing, the Zoning Advisory Group's recommendation, compliance with permit conditions, and consistency with the ordinance's purpose and intent. They also weigh the benefits against potential harm to properties or the county and can impose reasonable conditions to ensure public health, safety, and welfare.
Few's salon met the permit conditions, and she provided county staff and the commissioners with not only her application but a presentation detailing her alignment with the county's 2039 comprehensive development plan as well as Davis' stated economic priorities. She also had "over 50 letters of support," yet none of that mattered. "I think you have a fabulous business," said Davis. "You have a fabulous personality, and I love what you bring, and you actually hurt my heart right now, but we've got to deny," he added.
"The Board of Commissioners concedes that the salon fits the plan; it's a good business, she's doing the right thing, she is just not doing it where they want her to do it," says Bigbie. "The government shouldn't be stopping legitimate businesses from opening to stop them from competing with others."
Clayton County officials have denied several other potential salon owners a CUP since the passage of the 2024 ordinance. Lea Bakam, who owned LeNa Braiding, tells Reason she was denied a CUP on June 17 after spending "more than $35,000" fixing up a salon in Clayton County. Like Few, Bakam presented the board of commissioners with her business plan and letters of support. Yet, in denying the permit, Davis again noted that the area was "extremely saturated with salons."
The Georgia Supreme Court has already ruled, in Raffesnber v. Jackson (2023), that it is a violation of due process rights when governments restrict the pursuit of "lawful occupation of their choosing free from unreasonable government interference." I.J. prevailed in a similar case in Fulton County, Georgia—Diagne v. City of South Fulton (2024)—in which the Fulton County Superior Court struck down the town's attempt to block Awa Diagne from opening a salon. The court found that the county's denial of a permit ran "contrary to Georgia's long history of constitutional jurisprudence."
Few has filed for an interlocutory injunction to continue working while her court case is pending. Clayton County must respond to her lawsuit by September 18.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
That sucks. Looks like she will be forced to take a haircut.
You think if she was a man identifying as a woman she would've passed the C.U.P. or CUP check?
I was forced to wear a cup in high school. Been free ballin ever since.
Your obsession is unhealthy.
When working within the system doesn't work ... you start leaving people with a narrow field of alternatives. How much grief could be avoided by getting government out of the way; if there is a saturation of businesses ... then the bad ones will fail and correct itself. If they all survive , then you needed the bandwidth in the first place.
Absolutely correct.
We better keep an eye out to make sure she's not buying surplus earthmoving and welding equipment.
'"saturation" of similar businesses in a 5-mile radius,'
NIMBY for businesses too! Protect existing businesses from competitors!!! Exactly like Trump and his tariffs!!!
Except that you can't blame Trump for this. He got 15% of the vote in Clayton County. While every Republican has drunk the Kool Aid that Big Government should control markets, far too many Democrats agree.
LOLWUT? Wow are you a far left low IQ brainwashed Democrat cultist
Clayton is the most Democrat voting county in Georgia.
Similar to my point! It isn't just Republicans who want to protect special interests.
Welcome to Mercantilism!
What's good at the national level is good at the local level.
Maybe she has access to a Komatsu bulldozer, some plate steel, and a welder. There has been a precedent set.
'Instead of the law, county officials cited a "saturation" of similar businesses in a 5-mile radius, arguing the salon would not "grow Clayton County smartly." Commissioner DeMont Davis, whose fourth district includes the new location of the salon, even noted that Few's plan "does align" with the county's economic development plan but still voted against it, saying Few's business was "just in the wrong area."'
In other words, whatever bribe Few offered was not enough.
The lesson here is: never spend tens of thousands of dollars in any location where Democrat capriciousness is present.
Usually it is Republicans who do this. But as I pointed out, not always.
lol, "I know you are but what am I!"
Go fall in a hole please.
Even better - he’s getting Mamdani as his new daddy.
I'm just saying, in the last few decades, I've never been opposed to blowing up all the bridges and tunnels.
It's an option. I'm just saying.
please do give specifics.....
Since when?
Wonderful to know only Dems every do this.
Nobody needs 23 kinds of hairstyles.
I always advise my clients to not spend a lot of money before they get through the Planning and Zoning process, going so far as to eat the planning fees if need be, and those are for just raw land usually.
Any kind of SUP or CUP for tenant space? Forget about it. You’ll be lucky if you don’t get murdered by “concerned citizens” at the Public hearing (figuratively speaking).
Dollars to donuts someone on the planning commission or city council has a specific, connected, business they want to put in there.
A new WNBA toy shop.
You have that right. At a former job, we had a sheet metal shop that we did business with. The shop wanted to expand due to increased business. They had to get a permit to do it. They weren't building a new building, they were going to convert existing warehouse space into production space. When they went in front of City Council, the proposal was opened for comments. The first guy wanted to know when the shop was going to go Union. The second wanted to know how many "people of color" the shop was going to employ. Then there was the person who wanted to know what the business was going to do for the "underprivileged". The Council denied the permit, because the owners of the shop weren't prepared to answer those questions. The shop closed and moved out of the City. The City lost 45 jobs and any tax revenue. 45 may not sound like a lot, but, that Council has done the same thing numerous times, then they blame the loss of jobs and revenue on greedy businesses and corporations.
I must level a rare compliment.
I rarely read all the articles here anymore. Sometimes I'll skip to the comments, though they're just grey bars and people talking about the people I muted anymore. And if I'm in a mood I'll talk endless shit about the "editors" here, and Teen Reason, and the fact that it seems to have devolved into progressive hate and children learning progressive hate... but...
Here is an intern who, finally, found a libertarian issue and covered it in a way that could cause people who used to read a libertarian magazine to be interested.
This has all the hallmarks. It's focused on an entrepreneur doing something legitimate that we can all empathize with. It points out the damage done by arbitrary and capricious politicians having too much power to subvert the rule of law. The implication of protecting existing businesses being government picking winners is there.
I might dispute the Raffesnber v. Jackson cite since it's occupational licensing not licensing for the actual location of a business, but the other cite showed Diagne had a victory over a similar roadblock, a council denying her salon in an attempt to protect existing businesses from fair competition. An appropriate corollary, showing the subject of the story actually has a leg to stand on.
Considering the alternative is TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP ORANGEMANBAD TARRIFFS TRUMP OPEN BORDERS TRUMP! it is nice to see the intern actually trying something, you know, libertarian.
I'd like to read another pithy article like this. I want an update in a month when this lady has had her next court hearing.
More of this please. Much more. Much less of the 4 a week articles preaching on the same fucking rage bait like EB and JS do.
Very well said!
This +1000000000000
Lemme get this straight: The place was already a barber shop, so she was applying to resume the line of business that'd already been there. But maybe fancier.
Presumably following the denial she sold the place to someone who'll now have to adapt it to another use.
Not to defend the judgement but your correction or clarification doesn't refute the logic. It was a barber shop. More barbershops opened. The least beneficial barber shop, the one in this space, closed. The Board says the market is saturated, the barbershop will fail, and another use would be more profitable.
Now, again, I don't particularly agree that it's the commission's job to be deciding how viable the business will be, only that whatever building and zoning codes are or will be met. Their opinion that the shop will just wind up broke and closed in short order, even if correct, is, or should be, irrelevant.