Letter: It’s not the lights, it’s the dancers

Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2002 | 8:57 a.m.

Judy Odierna's Dec. 17 article, "Strippers, club owners disagree over licensing" was very interesting, but let's face facts. The idea that club owners "police themselves" is ludicrous. Owners who support this business license proposal do so for two self-serving reasons: it dumps the responsibility for complying with the law on the dancers, and lends further credibility to the argument that their employees (dancers) are "independent contractors" and thus not entitled to any benefits or protections under the law.

But there are other reasons to oppose this proposal. Like it or not, our local economy is fueled by tourist dollars. These tourists aren't flying here to see the pretty lights. They're responding to an orchestrated $200 million a year advertising campaign that paints our city as the undisputed mecca of booze, gambling and girls. To fulfill that promise we depend on out-of-state entertainers. With 50,000 work cards outstanding and 15,000 dancers in the valley, that leaves 35,000 work cards in the hands of out-of-state dancers. Why do these dancers come here? Because it's cost effective. They could just as easily work in Florida or Texas (where it's free), or any one of a dozen other cities. But they don't. They come here because it's economically feasible.

By not adopting this proposal, and letting Clark County price itself out of the market with $550-a-year licenses, the city would gain an enviable competitive advantage. Pretty lights won't revitalize the downtown economy. To compete with the Strip, the city must persuade tourists to head up north. The best way to do that is to have the girls.

ANDREA HACKETT

Editor's note: The writer is president of the Las Vegas Dancers Alliance.