Eyecandy Showgirls has filed a cross complaint against the city of Chula Vista in what is the latest round of a litigation battle between the city and the controversial strip club.
The cross complaint filed in August by Eyecandy attorney Roger Diamond states that Eyecandy has a right to operate at its 215 Bay Blvd. location under the Civil Rights Act and is currently in business under the first and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution.
Chula Vista City Attorney Glen Googins said the city respects constitutional rights, but the city has rules to regulate businesses in the city.
“We certainly respect the first amendment; however, the city has authority to regulate locations of businesses and the terms on which businesses operate, including adult oriented businesses,” Googins said.
The city of Chula Vista accuses Eyecandy of not being in compliance with the city’s zoning ordinance, which states that
Eyecandy cannot operate within 500 feet of residentially-zoned territory or residentially-used property.
However, Diamond said the ordinance was imposed after Eyecandy took up residence in Chula Vista.
The cross complaint reads: “After cross complainants opened and began operating their adult cabaret and began exercising their rights under the first and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution under Article I, section 2 of the California Constitution, the city retaliated by adopting an ordinance with respect to zoning and other matters. The city is now attempting to enforce its zoning provisions. The city contends that Eyecandy is not operating in the proper location.”
Googins insists that the city always had zoning provisions and a code that regulates businesses such as Eyecandy and was revised years before Eyecandy came into the city.
Diamond said Eyecandy is currently not seeking monetary damages from the city, unless it is forced to close.
“We’re not seeking any money from the city as long as we’re not shut down,” he said.
Diamond said if anyone has an issue with the way Eyecandy does business, then he’ll be more than happy to sit down with them and try to come up with a resolution.
Nonetheless, he said, the community wants the establishment to say around.
“If people do not want it they won’t frequent it,” he said. “It is about supply and demand,” he said.
Googins said if Eyecandy does not comply with the city ordinance then litigation needs to proceed.
“If Eyecandy does not take the steps to bring its business operations in line with city code and the city’s standards, then we will continue with litigation.”