Laserfiche WebLink
Session 710, Minutes <br />August 20, 1962 <br /> <br />Page 20 <br /> <br />represents Deep-Clean, Inc., and does not at the present time ouma <br />laundromat in University City, but does have plans for acquiring one <br />within the next two weeks. He expressed the vlev that opening and closing <br />should not be governed at this time because the operatot~ o£ lat,ndroumts <br />and dry cleaning establishments are strictly in the business of selling <br />service - not products as many other businesses do. <br /> <br />Mr. Clyde Williams, upon being recognized, said he operates a laundromat <br />at 1226 North and South Road and resides inCanchester, Missouri. Mr. <br />Williams spoke against Bill No. 5966 and expressed the view that closing <br />hours as proposed will inconvenience a large number of people who prefer <br />to use the laundromats during late night and early morning hours and it <br />would also be detrimental to the owners of the businesses to have to pay <br />someone to open and close the establishments at prescribed times - the <br />basis on which the stores are set up does not cover payment of such em- <br />ployees. <br /> <br />Hr. Siegelman in answer to a question raised by Councilman Tandler said <br />he does not know the number of laundromats and dry cleaning establishments <br />in University City. Councilman Tandler reviewed the background of Bill <br />No. 5966, pointing out that the bill was prepared at his request upon <br />recommendation of the administrative forces, who were advised by the <br />Police Department that it is difficult to maintain adequate surveillance <br />over establishments that stay open all night and the administrative forces <br />feel it would be in the public interest not to have these places stay open <br />all night. Mr. Siegelman said that speaking from considerable experience <br />in this field, and from experience in representing several hundred opera- <br />tors in this entire area, they have found from diligent attention to the <br />operation of their own businesses,they are able to police them rather well <br />themselves. <br /> <br />Hr. Siegelman expressed the viev that in many areas there is a disposition <br />on the part of some people to over-magnify a few isolated instances of <br />trouble in this type of establishment. Mr. Siegelman submitted that there <br />are individuals engaged in various professions, etc. who can use the <br />facilities of laundromats only at unusual hours and often times do their <br />o~n policing, and he urged the Council to consider that a large segment <br />of the population do need the late hours or the early hours which these <br />kinds of establishments afford them. <br /> <br />Councilman Barge expressed his views in opposition to Bill No. 5966 - he <br />said he opposed the previous bill which provided for closing hours be- <br />tween 11 P.M. and 7 A.M. and cannot see much difference in those hours <br />or 11:59 P.M. and 7 A.M. It is, in his opinion, Just a method to try to <br />re-hash something which the Council has previously acted upon. He said <br />the purpose of this bill, it seems to him, is to attempt to accomplish <br />by indirection what the Council has been advised by the Director of Law <br />it cannot do directly, and that is to require an attendant in these es- <br />tablishments. <br /> <br />Councilman Crimm said that he shares Councilman Baris' views and would <br />like to add that he does not feel a case has been made for this type of <br />restriction upon these establishments - he thinks it would be an incon- <br />venience to some people who use them and would also be a hardship upon <br /> <br /> <br />