Rosemount City Council – June 7, 2011 from Alan Cox on Vimeo.
According to Rosemount’s Community Development Director as well as the background information for the June 7, 2011 City Council Meeting (full documentation), the Rosemount’s Planning Commission members felt that the state’s regulations regarding “home occupation” status of tattoo parlors is acceptable for the city. However, both the City Staff and the Council disagreed, although for very different reasons, and now tattoos and body piercing artists are not permitted to practice their craft in their Rosemount homes as is permitted by the State.
Beginning at around the 30:30 mark in the video of the Rosemount City Council meeting above discussion begins about “home occupation” body art businesses and why the Planning Commission believes that the State’s policy goes far enough to provide the necessary protections for the public. However, as referenced in the background information, Rosemount’s City Staff feels that the State is unable to perform its inspections and without any input from the public documented, feels that the public would be surprised to find that a tattoo parlor is permissible business within a Rosemount residence.
Councilmember Kim Shoe-Corrigan (49:21) notes that she took an informal, and unscientific poll of her 17 and 18 year old students, “and in both classes nobody thought it was an acceptable use for a home occupation.” Some might note that if more documentation on this informal survey was provided by Mrs. Shoe-Corrigan such as whether the students studied the background information, state policy, recommendations from the Planning Commission and if the poll was done anonymously and thus would not have possibly affected their relationship with their teacher, then the unscientific survey would have been more useful to mention during a council meeting. However, even so, Councilmember Jeff Weisensel mentioned (55:57), “Personally I don’t care for tattoos, uhh, I don’t see they have a real good purpose,” and many within the community, especially the 25% of the population with tattoos, might offer their opinions on decision-makers enacting policy based on biased opinion rather than Planning Commission objectivity, lack of public outrage over the State’s policy, etc.
At the end of the discussion the City Council voted 4-1 to ban body art businesses within homes in residential zoned areas in Rosemount without any direct public input and in direct conflict with the Planning Commission’s recommendation while stating opinions and poorly formed polls of individuals, ~50% of which cannot vote and cannot get a tattoo anyway, as the reasons why.
After reading the background information and/or watching the relevant portion of the council meeting, what do you think about Rosemount’s decision to ban residential body art business from operation within the city’s limits? Do you believe that due to the lack of public input/education that more should have been done to garner their opinions on the subject prior to the council’s vote? Are you concerned, as the one dissenting councilmember was, that this decision could possibly impact other less contentious businesses operating within people’s homes in Rosemount? According to Rosemount City Staff, other South Metro cities are revisiting their own ordinances regarding body art in light of the change in Minnesota state policy, would you want these banned in your neighborhoods and why?
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
June 9th, 2011 at 8:50 am
I for one have gotten a few tattoos at a home or a friends house. Each time was clean and all the tools were well sterilized. Its cheaper for both the client and the artist. If you take a chance of getting one at home and dont ask if everything is clean then thats on you for taking a risk like that. I dont like the ban the state made and know a few tattoo artists who agree with me.
June 9th, 2011 at 9:03 am
I thought the predominate mantra these days was smaller, less restrictive government!?! Evidently not in Rosemount.
The collective citizenry will come to the realization soon (hopefully before 2012) that most conservatives like government restrictions when it comes to personal decisions; abortion, voting, marriage, tattoos – then government in your life is good. Progressives and libertarians actually have a live and let live, personal freedom is good philosophy.
But, Rosemount politics are so much fun to watch – it’s like a demolition derby.
June 9th, 2011 at 9:28 am
This measure is clearly being put into place so as to discriminate against the low class uneducated people who choose to get and provide tattoos. This is classism in it’s purist form.
Shame on you Rosemount!
June 9th, 2011 at 10:14 am
It was a free country once. We have lost so much in the last few years, it makes me sick to think I gave 4 years of my life to a bunch of future foolish and ignorant voters like we have today. As for tattoos, most people I know with them are sorry they got their tattoo, sooner or later in their life. It is very costly to have them removed and many are downright gross in appearance. Of course some can be tasteful as well. Any law should only require a licensed artist/applicator and the subject be at least 21 and sober at the time of application to the body.
June 9th, 2011 at 10:15 am
More regulation is usually a bad thing. What’s the point of the Planning Commission if you’re going to throw their recommendation out the window anyway?
June 9th, 2011 at 10:22 am
Joey summed it up for me. I dont have any tattoos. I dont plan on getting any tattoos. But I do hate to see our govt put their slimy little fingers where they dont belong.
I would not go so far as to say its classism, as I know many middle and upper middle class people with tattoos. I would say that it is elected offials using govt office to legislate/impose their beliefs on others.
June 9th, 2011 at 10:34 am
My classism comment was based on what I saw in the video. They did this because the idiots making the decision basically decided that they didn’t want their perception of people who get and provide tattoos to be “their next door neighbor”. The blond woman using the word “conservative” early in the discussion is clearly judging others who are different than her. I hope her children get sleeved when they grow up.
It has nothing to do with the actual class of people who have tattoos even though the majority of them fit the stereotype that the Rosemount City Council perceives them to be.
June 9th, 2011 at 10:37 am
Yeah bearded bloggers pointing out their ridiculousness included.
June 9th, 2011 at 10:43 am
It boggles my mind that tattoos are still looked down upon in this day and age. I can understand things like religious-based objections, maybe, but other than that I don’t get why the stigma persists. Must be a generational thing.
June 9th, 2011 at 10:44 am
Especially bearded bloggers! None of them want you milling about in their yard Bill.
June 9th, 2011 at 10:51 am
I don’t have any tattoos either, though I’m considering getting one in memory of the daughter we lost a few months ago. As Chad noted, whether or not you personally like or participate in a given activity can’t be the reason for a vote against that activity.
June 9th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Is this classism or preemptively saving face and being worried of their own shadows? It only takes one bad thing to happen at an in home parlor and media will ask, “How is this even allowed?”
schnergun had it right, if you don’t do you own due dillegence, it should be on you. It should be allowed but only if the homes are brick or painted in a green and white color scheme.
June 9th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
DaveF, you are probably right, but my response to the media would be that its allowed because we live in a “free” country. People need to take responsibility for their own actions instead of looking for big brother govt to save them from themselves.
Joey, I am sorry for your loss. Please accept my condolences.
June 9th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
The safety aspect of this is already addressed through licensing tattoo/piercing artists, which Minnesota requires. As such, where someone practices it shouldn’t matter.
June 9th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Tim,
More specifically they have no problems with other businesses run out of the home (non-retail of course because god forbid someone is selling vegetables and plants from their driveway). They are specifically prohibiting this type of business because they are discriminating against those who get tattoos due to the Council’s outdated personal beliefs.
June 10th, 2011 at 12:42 am
I am so glad Rosemount decided to finally tackle this incredible important issue finally. How the hell did this even come up? Oh wait, anything to do with the new Tattoo shop that just opened up recently in Rosemount. Jeez, helluva coinkidink, ya think? Droste and his band of no-talent ass clowns continue to have their heads up their butts.
June 10th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Obviously the council was concerned that the only way to get rid of tattoos is the same way you get rid of cats… with lasers.
http://icanhascheezburger.com/2011/06/08/funny-pictures-cat-comics-tattoos-cats
June 10th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
There’s a tattoo Parlour in Rosemount?
During the last election, I did a lot of research on the Rosemount City council so my husband could make an informed vote. I can’t vote as I’m not a US citizen.
I had no idea there was so much politics in this small town and by the close results, it seems that people are waking up and spoke loud and clear that they want change, even though the incumbents won. They did so by the hair of their teeth.
Rosemount is not new business friendly. That ‘downtown’ is a joke. That nice new condo building does not fit in with the rest of run down empty buildings. If new business is to make it to Rosemount, City Council needs to be more open and friendly to that… hello, tax base??
June 11th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Again, apparently we just need a monorail and then everything will be fine? If I was independently wealthy, I’d buy the seediest house in rosemount, do only the bare minimum, and open up a tattoo shop. I’d do it for free, so it wouldn’t be a business and the idiots at the city couldn’t anything about it. Oh sorry Mr. Weisensel, i accidentally put my left pant leg on this morning before my right. I apologize for not doing things the way you “like” them done. Jeff Weisenel gets my vote for Mayor of “If I wouldn’t do it, you can’t” town. Who voted for this idiot?