CCMIN120198 - Laserfiche WebLink

Marlyce Jean Dezzutti, 1105 Lund Ranch Road, said Pleasanton has a small town atmosphere and is a good place to raise children. She used to live in Colorado Springs, Colorado. One section of town in Colorado Springs is strictly for extrasensory or psychic businesses. She would like Pleasanton to do the same and keep this type of business in an industrial area. When she is sick she visits her doctor; when she needs spiritual help she visits her church. She does not walk along Main Street looking for help. She believed in freedom of speech and everyone has the right to do what he or she wants but she felt the downtown area was not the place to locate these businesses. Jody Ward, 5636 Hansen Drive, said she knew many of the people here tonight and none of the people endorse threats or hostility. That is not what the community is about. She would like to address the permitting process. She moved to Pleasanton specifically because of the wholesome atmosphere for her children. It is because of her pride in the standard of living for Pleasanton that she strongly objects to allowing extrasensory or psychic businesses to operate in the Pleasanton area. Just because the staff report states that there were no negative impacts found in other cities does not mean there would not be negative impacts in the City of Pleasanton. Some of the negative impacts might be negative impressions, lowering property values, and introducing an undesirable flavor to the character of the City. She understood the First Amendment issues are a concern. It is currently being debated in the courts whether fortune telling is being accepted as a business practice and therefore does not enjoy the protection of the First Amendment. Regulating the practices of psychics does not infringe on free speech and provides cities with the means to restrict the expansion of this undesirable element. The proposed ordinance and permitting process reflect some of these regulations. While these permitting requirements are a good beginning they do not go far enough to regulate psychics and protect the community. Other possible requirements might include: require fortune tellers to pass professional and certification examinations and licensing similar to what counselors and therapists take; require recertification on a regular basis; prohibit fortune tellers from accepting any property or thing of value in lieu of fees; require the list of fee schedules to be listed with the Police Department and inform officials of any changes; require an inspection at the time of business license renewal; provide an investigation process on all complaints received (the business would have to pay for the investigation if the complaint is valid and criminal action is necessary); and establish a process for civil action against fortune tellers. If the ordinance is carefully drafted and narrowly targets practices rather than speech it probably would withstand any legal challenge. She believes that this ordinance will only cause headaches for the Council. The Council needs to carefully study and review the ordinance and take its time in making a decision. She encouraged Council to vote against the proposed ordinance and pursue a cautious course in drafting any future regulation. J. J. Green, (no address given), understood that from a legal standpoint the City must allow the permit under the First Amendment. She has specifically investigated gypsy crimes for the last five years. She does not believe that all gypsies commit crime. She has learned from gypsies that fortunetelling and psychic operations are a front for scams and financial fraud. Fortunetelling and psychic operations have no religious basis. She also learned from a family Pleasanton City Council 25 12/01/98 Minutes