Bathhouses File Suit Against Los Angeles

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - Nine bathhouses have filed suit against the City and County of Los Angeles after the city council adopted an ordinance in May which would require bathhouses and similar commercial establishments to file for permits as “commercial sex venues.” The dispute, according to representatives from the bathhouses, is partially semantic: The county defines a commercial sex venue as “any establishment … which as one of its primary purposes allows … patrons to engage in any high-risk sexual contact while on the premises.”
“Our case is not to say that there is no sex going on,” says Scott Campbell, president of Midtowne Spa. “But their definition of a commercial sex venue is a place where the primary purpose is for people to have unsafe sex. I won’t file for a permit under that wording.” Campbell argues that the bathhouses have been crucial in promoting safe sex among the gay community in Los Angeles. All of the bathhouses involved in the suit offer counseling, free condoms, and HIV/AIDS testing for patrons, as well as assisting with fundraising for HIV/AIDS-related charities in the greater Los Angeles community.
Other spas involved in the suit include the 1350 Club, Melrose Spa, Hollywood Spa, and the Zone, which, Campbell estimates, host 50,000 patrons a month.
John Schunhoff, the city’s chief of operations for public health, says there are basic facts backing up the recent change in the ordinance. After a 13-year decline, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported a sudden increase in the rate of syphilis, and a predominant rise in syphilis amongst men who have sex with men. A follow-up study found that the three most common places for these men to meet sexual partners were in bars, through the Internet, and in bathhouses.
“We also found a higher percentage of men who went to the bathhouses who were HIV positive, and about nine percent [of bathhouse patrons] reported that they had unprotected anal intercourse,” says Schunhoff. After looking at the previous ordinance, which had last been considered in the ’80s, Schunhoff says that the city “thought there was a better way to go about relationships with the bathhouses to reduce the amount of unsafe sex.”
Campbell notes that these same studies are turning a blind eye to the positive side of the situation. “Ninety percent of the patrons are having safe sex, but they look at the 10 percent who aren’t,” he says.
Discrimination is another concern. Under the new ordinance, an unelected city official would regulate the spas. “Right now, the people at the County Health Office realize that we are valuable to them in promoting safer sex,” says Campbell. “The problem would be if the positions were turned over to less understanding people.”
The new ordinance also imposes fees that, Campbell says, don’t apply to heterosexual venues. For example, the bathhouses must pay for the HIV testing, counseling, and condoms from their own pockets, which, argues Campbell, the CDC should help to fund. “There are similar heterosexual establishments that don’t have the same regulations forced upon them,” he says, noting motels with hourly rates as an example. “I don’t know many people who are taking naps for an hour.”
The Public Health office maintains that the new ordinances are not an issue of discrimination, saying the city would address other establishments if they were determined to meet the definition of a commercial sex venue. “It’s a step-by-step process,” says Schunhoff. “Right now, all we want is for the bathhouses to comply with the regulations, all of which have as their aim safer sex.”
from LA City Beat