2008 Woodie Awards
Open Hooters
Image of restaurant will not scar children, community members
Issue date: 8/25/08 Section: Editorial
To some residents, the opening of a Hooters restaurant is emblematic of Mount Pleasant's moral decay.
This was a nice town, they argue, and opening a Hooters will, in the words of one resident, ruin it.
It's easy to lambaste Hooters because of its popular image: girls in short shorts and tight tops. But residents unfairly target the restaurant over other bars and grills, which feature waitresses in similar attire.
The residents, who appealed the location's special use permit and have stalled its development, have yet to establish that Hooters would bring to the community anything other than what is already there: a restaurant catering to individuals looking to relax.
Similarly, residents' concerns over the restaurant's location, planned for 1329 S. Mission St., hinges on the claim that it would expose community members, especially children, to unwanted sights.
However, this grossly overstates the scenery a Hooters would bring. It's nothing that would be deeply scarring on children: Short shorts are not an uncommon sight in the community, particularly among college students, and they need not make a greatly negative impression upon children.
Seeing a Hooters waitress will not turn an upright child into a depraved monster.
No, Hooters is not a model of moral propriety, but neither is it a blotch upon the community - or at the very least, a bigger blotch than other established bars and grills.
Many in the community would enjoy a Hooters, and concerned residents should reconsider their complaints.
This was a nice town, they argue, and opening a Hooters will, in the words of one resident, ruin it.
It's easy to lambaste Hooters because of its popular image: girls in short shorts and tight tops. But residents unfairly target the restaurant over other bars and grills, which feature waitresses in similar attire.
The residents, who appealed the location's special use permit and have stalled its development, have yet to establish that Hooters would bring to the community anything other than what is already there: a restaurant catering to individuals looking to relax.
Similarly, residents' concerns over the restaurant's location, planned for 1329 S. Mission St., hinges on the claim that it would expose community members, especially children, to unwanted sights.
However, this grossly overstates the scenery a Hooters would bring. It's nothing that would be deeply scarring on children: Short shorts are not an uncommon sight in the community, particularly among college students, and they need not make a greatly negative impression upon children.
Seeing a Hooters waitress will not turn an upright child into a depraved monster.
No, Hooters is not a model of moral propriety, but neither is it a blotch upon the community - or at the very least, a bigger blotch than other established bars and grills.
Many in the community would enjoy a Hooters, and concerned residents should reconsider their complaints.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
David Jesuit
posted 8/25/08 @ 9:34 AM EST
You failed to mention the main points we made in opposing the Hooters at 1329 S. Mission St. Namely, allowing alcohol to be served at that location in combination with hours of operation until 1 AM would have a significant adverse consequence on our adjacent neighborhood. (Continued…)
Randey Mathis
posted 8/26/08 @ 7:47 AM EST
Your property values would take a big hit?
Are you freaking serious? I'm still laughing at that.
Look around this town and you'll see all the for sale signs on houses that NOBODY is buying. (Continued…)
chipskeptic
posted 8/26/08 @ 2:12 PM EST
Ah, yes....NIMBY...that should NOT be the driving and predominate factor in these decisions, and a political science professor should know better....but unfortunately, provincial concerns take precedence in this town (see the Broomfield/Crawford development fiasco)
BTW. (Continued…)
Post a Comment