Naughty But Nice owner
Richard Osburn, Naughty But Nice owner, said he has tried to decrease the amount of sexually oriented products in his store. Osburn said that despite his efforts, the city always finds a way to label his products as adult-only. Enlarge video
It did not surprise Naughty But Nice owner Richard Osburn when his landlord presented him with an eviction notice.
The city has been threatening to shut down Osburn's adult novelty store for the past seven years, so he says he has learned to be thankful for each day his business is open.
"It's funny because people who I do business with and customers seem to be more worried about this than me," Osburn said. "I'm like a duck on a pond - I let it all roll off my back."
Osburn said his landlord asked him on Nov. 7 to vacate the premises by Nov. 30. When Osburn asked for at least 30 days notice, his landlord served him with an eviction notice on Nov. 17.
Osburn will face his landlord in court today in an eviction trial.
The landlord, Bruce Banning, said Osburn had been a good tenant until he did not follow through on the city's order to relocate the business, and that is why Osburn is being evicted.
Banning said he served Osburn an eviction notice more than a year ago. He said Osburn was given the option to pay a reduced rent with multiple for-lease signs on the building or pay full rent with limited signs on the building. Osburn chose to pay full rent.
Osburn opened Naughty But Nice, 1741 Mass., in December 1999. After several of his neighbors complained to the city about the nature and the location of Osburn's store, the City Commission passed an ordinance in July 2000 that limited adult novelty stores to be located along a highway, among other restrictions. The other adult novelty store in town, Priscilla's, 1206 W. 23rd St., was allowed to remain in its location because 23rd Street also is Kansas Highway 10.
Naughty But Nice was given five years to relocate. After an unsuccessful search, Osburn decided to fight the city in court.
Osburn's five-year grandfather clause expired in July 2005, and he has been to court with the city several times since. The next court date with the city is Feb. 14.
Jerry Little, city prosecutor, said the city would probably drop its suit against Osburn if he were evicted.
"Basically, our only intention is to get him out of the premises," Little said.
If Osburn is not evicted, Little said the city would either seek a fine or request jail time. Little said the fine would be about $10,000. He said he was unsure what the maximum amount of jail time was for this type of case, but it was probably less than a year.
Osburn said his legal battle with the city is a case of elimination, not relocation.
"If there is a chance for me to move somewhere and still make money, they won't approve it," he said.
Osburn said his only rental option is a space in 10 Marketplace, 1800 23rd St., but it costs $4,000 a month to rent. He now pays $2,400 for rent.
Osburn said he tried to rent at other strip malls in Lawrence, but his application was either rejected by the building owners or by the city.
The city's law restricts adult novelty stores to be 600 feet from homes, 1,000 feet from churches and schools and 1,500 from day cares.
Osburn said he believes the law was the work of City Manager David Corliss.
"This is his pet project," Osburn said.
Corliss disagrees.
"I wouldn't know him if he walked down the street," Corliss said.
Corliss said the City Commission adopted the law because it wanted adult novelty stores to be along highways because of traffic volume and to get them away from a neighborhood setting.
Former City Commissioner Erv Hodges confirmed Corliss' statements about the commission's decision. He said the commission created the law in response to neighborhood complaints.
Osburn said he is not bothering anybody and is a good neighbor. Current neighbors agree.
"Right against our back fence is the Dairy Queen drive-through," said Kate Gonzales, a Lawrence resident who lives on Vermont Street behind Naughty But Nice. "Having that against our backyard, for me, is more of a concern than Naughty But Nice."
Melissa Rempfer, who lives directly behind Naughty But Nice, agreed with Gonzales and added that those who were concerned about Naughty But Nice's location have moved away.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
rumor_man (anonymous) says…
I'm hoping for a half off sale in the near future...if you know what I mean.
MattressMan (anonymous) says…
This towns leaders don't care about any business if it doesn't fit their cookie cutter idea of the perfect business. You know, white collar research jobs paying about 75k per. I wonder if Osburn were to give them shares of NbN stock if that would change things.
compmd (anonymous) says…
"You know, white collar *biotech* research jobs paying about 75k per. "
There, fixed that for you.
tolawdjk (anonymous) says…
They need to be on highways because of traffic volume concerns? Are you kidding me? Any of the stores on Mass has to have higher traffic volumes than an adult store. Hell, Yellow House has to have higher volumes.
When are the city's "reasons" going to start passing the laugh test?
ilovelucy (anonymous) says…
The biggest mistake this City ever made was hiring Corliss as the manager. He is arrogant and has a definite agenda. He also, in my opinion, doesn't know up from down.
What they are doing to Richard is a travesty.
OnlyTheOne (anonymous) says…
There's really something amiss in Lawrence and it's getting worse every day!
Here's two businesses (sp?) the city has (or soon will) forced out of business.
It's a sorry day of area residents.
Fatty_McButterpants (anonymous) says…
Corliss has definitely made this his pet project. The man seems to think that it's going to endear him to city residents if he gets rid of the big, bad sex store.
You've got to love Lawrence, and, for that matter, the rest of the U.S., for being absolutely terrified about the human body, sex, sexual fetishes, etc. I know what can go in to the location - a gun store!! Americans are afraid of talking about sex, but LOVE their guns!
Godot (anonymous) says…
Fun and Games should sublet half their space to him.
monkeyhawk (anonymous) says…
Maybe someone has a grand redevelopment plan for that area?? Perhaps this business and Yellow House are just tiny obstacles in the way of "progress".
ilovelucy says:
"The biggest mistake this City ever made was hiring Corliss as the manager. He is arrogant and has a definite agenda. He also, in my opinion, doesn't know up from down.
What they are doing to Richard is a travesty."
That is worth repeating.
badger (anonymous) says…
What garbage.
The man sells perfectly legal products to adults. I went in to get a joke gift for a friend's bachelor party once, and one of my friends was actually carded. Osburn's not marketing to kids, and he's taking reasonable precautions to make sure his clientele is over 18.
Such a bunch of nanny-state PC BS. Where does Corliss get off deciding what sort of products adults can buy?
Also, limiting certain types of businesses to highway corridors just ultimately creates a tawdry 'red light' type area, when someone decides that hey, he'll open up a strip joint over there nice and close to the porn stores (do the video stores with back rooms have to relocate, too?), and then someone puts in an adult 'newsstand' with magazines and movies, and then certain ladies of a questionable reputation consider that business is more easily transacted where a concentration of potential customers can be found, and certain individuals who deal in unlicensed pharmaceuticals hang a shingle where those ladies have established a thriving illicit business district. Far better to have businesses like Naughty but Nice spread out over a town, not creating 'the porny side of town' over on the highway.
average (anonymous) says…
"it wanted adult novelty stores to be along highways because of traffic volume"
So more people can see them? That makes exactly no sense at all. None of it does.
I suspect the landlords he was talking to (maybe in North Lawrence?) didn't want him because they knew Corliss would hound him no matter where he went, and they didn't want to have to fight city harassment.
average (anonymous) says…
Also, can someone look at the ordinance again and compare it to the LJWorld's recounting of it in this article. There are at least 20 homes within 600 feet of Priscilla's. If they haven't ordered Priscilla's closed, why?
bearclaws (anonymous) says…
If the 32nd street alignment of the SLT is ever finished (not getting into that debate), 23rd street will no longer be K-10. That would mean Priscilla's would technically have to vacate. I'm sure Priscilla's has much deeper pockets than Richard does, and would wrap the city up in an expensive legal fight. That will be interesting to watch.
In the 18 years I have lived in Lawrence, Priscilla's has been the only business to make a go of it at that corner for more than 6 months.
It's a shame that Richard was allowed to open up shop, and then be the subject of an arbitrary ordinance. I applaud his resourcefulness, and hope he can find another storefront somewhere in town. There is a strip mall in North Lawrence that has some empty spots.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
stops4armadillos (anonymous) says…
So much for Lawrence being the bastion of tolerance and progressive thought in Kansas. This is ridiculous and quite sad.
takeastand (anonymous) says…
If it wasn't a smut shop, would you really care?
SloMo (anonymous) says…
I live in this neighborhood, and this guy has done everything he can to be a good neighbor - he downsized his (initially obnoxious) sign and moved it back, and there have never been any problems that I know of from his customers. I say leave him be.
badger (anonymous) says…
takeastand:
If it wasn't a 'smut shop', would it be hounded out of business?
takeastand (anonymous) says…
People are forced to move, evicted all the time by private ownership and/or goverment all the time. Government is using their power of eminent domain and the Supreme Court is allowing it
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
FatTony (anonymous) says…
So does that mean when the SLT is built, 23rd St won't be Kansas Hwy 10 anymore? If so I think not building the SLT is being funded by Pricillas who would have to be forced to move also. Let the conspiracy begin.
Crossfire (anonymous) says…
Looks and sounds a lot like Mini-Flynt.
I'd rather have an NbN in the neghiborhood than a Wal~Mart.
riverat (Joe Hyde) says…
I hope the judge hearing this case will consider the flawed logic and anti-sex prejudice underpinning the city's "relocate order" and slam dunk this order to the place it belongs: the trash can.
Confrontation (anonymous) says…
"Such a bunch of nanny-state PC BS. Where does Corliss get off deciding what sort of products adults can buy?"
Sorry, I just really thought that last sentence was relevant. I just wish you would've stopped the sentence right after, "Where does Corliss get off." That'd make a good question. My guess is "nowhere."
akt2 (anonymous) says…
The owner of the property has the right to decide who he rents to. Not to say this merchant is not a good tenant. But he is a tenant. Why would he presume to be able to rent there indefinitely?
blue73harley (anonymous) says…
I bought one of his T-shirts awhile back..."Lawrence, Kansas: The Little Dictatorship Surrounded by a Free Country." Says it all.
headdoctor (anonymous) says…
scootterxlch (Anonymous) says:
what ever happend to property rights.
The city changed the rules after he opened .
does the word grandfather clause mean anything.
live and let live.
Many asume that when laws are made the governing body is obligated to include the Grand Father Clause when making law. They are not. In this case the City granted him a five year Ex Post Facto. While I do not agree with the City Naughty but nice should have been looking for another place to move. Location is nice but with his type of speciality store surely he could have found something in that lenght of time that was affordable and customers would have moved with him. Trying to fight the City is not cheap or easy and I wonder if he is still going to have to pay the daily fines for remaining open beyond the deadline. If so, the store is technically bankrupt already and if not he could have afforded higher rent to move.
fchambers (anonymous) says…
Average,
Priscilla's is allowed to stay in its location on 23rd St. because it met the highway requirement. It received a grandfather clause from the City Commission that exempted it from the other provisions of the ordinance. That was clear in the original version, but was edited out of the version that printed.
HodgePodge (Erin Parmelee) says…
right_thinker (Anonymous) says:
Again, I must query:
Where is the tolerance and diversity?
Lawrence, an enigma:a mystery wrapped inside a riddle.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I would point out that the majority of posters here are displaying tons of it. :)
effbombs (anonymous) says…
i remember when it was more known for whipits than anything else.
dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says…
Once he changed the sign, I had no problems with him. As long as he keeps underaged kids out of his store, what's the beef?
Ceallach (anonymous) says…
Does a property owner have to provide a renter with a reason for non-renewal?
average (anonymous) says…
fchambers -
So, Priscilla's got an indefinite grandfather clause on their clearly nonconforming use and NbN got a five-year grandfather clause. I guess the city will have to prove (if the eviction doesn't take) that not only were the laws not written specifically to harass him, but that the variation in forbearance is not specifically targeting him over his competitors. Good luck to Mr Osburn.
monkeywrench1969 (anonymous) says…
Priscilla's had been in the location if I remember correctly for several years prior to the ordinance coming into effect. That was part of the reason for the grandfather there. The oridinance came about because NbN opened and a fringe of people started to complain about the "rising number of porn stores".
If NbN could find space in the "very successful" Outlet Mall or one of the near by commercial spots close to I70 that could be one of the first things people see coming from KC to the west. It would probably increase his revenues for those who are trucking it or speeding toward Abilene for their fix at the Lions Den.
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
City of Lawrence, leave the poor dude alone ferkristssake ya friggin' closed-door meeting retrobates.
How about selling the scandalous video of Sue Hack as she "conducted" her closed door bio-butthead meeting. Seeexxxxyyyy...
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
Monkey, dude you're right on. Osborne should move his business to the outlet mall on i-70. welcome to lawrence out-a-towners and get yer free sex toy with the purchase of every Sue Hack video.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Seem like a quiet business that generates revenue which has a steady clientele hmmmmm. He probably makes about 75k annually.
A lot more peaceful than say Last Call?
NBNRICHARD (anonymous) says…
Richard, owner of NBN here. First let me thank the many supporters out there!
Now for the truth:
1. Yes, I did open a legal business in a legal location.
2. Yes, the rules were changed after the fact.
3. Yes, I did meet with D. Corliss in his office in April or May 2000. I was there to let him know
that I did open the business legally and that if any changes were made regarding
location or legalities of my business, that I would expect to be GF'd. To which he
replied that there was no obligation on the City's part to give me the GF clause, and that I
would NOT be given one. He then leaned across his desk with finger pointed in my direction
and said " I do not like what you're doing or where you're doing it, and it is my job to get you
out of there by whatever legal means necessary." Now tell me this isn't personal!
4. Yes, Priscilla's does meet the City's definition of being on a State Hwy. (35 mph speed
limit and a 4 way lighted intersection at thier location notwithstanding). I will also add that in
spite of the unfairness on the hwy. issue, I am 100% in favor of their right to do business
at that location for as long as they wish to do so.
5. Yes, I have attempted to find a suitable location, ie: one that would appease the City, as well
well as being cost effective, NOT cost prohibitive. Interesting fact, yes, there are a #
of homes within the 600ft. requirement, but Priscilla's was
GF'd in. Once again, I have no
problem with that. The problem that I do have is this, If you are forcing the re-
location of an existing business, shouldn't that business expect to be given the same
variance that the GF'd business was given? Where's the fairness here?
6. No, when at long last, the SLT does get completed, Priscilla's won't be required to move.
I know this because in Mar. 2006, I appeared before the Board of Zoning and Appeals. The
appearance was to ask for a variance on the hwy law. king dave told the BZA board that
they had no right to grant me a Variance, so the board would not even take a vote on the matter.
Interesting fact #2., One board member did bring up the issue with the Priscilla's location not
meeting the hwy. law once the SLT is finished. King Dave's response, We collect funds
from the State for 23rd St. being a state hwy, so therefore we would likely petition the
State to keep 23rd St. as a "Business Hwy 10" so that we can continue to collect these
funds. ie: We may not like Priscilla's being there, but as long as we get enough $
from the State, we can live with it.
NBNRICHARD (anonymous) says…
Page 2:
The landlord issue: The fact is this this, yes the lanlord has a right to rent to whomever he wishes. I respect that. The truth is though, that the lanlord DID NOT serve me with an eviction notice more than a year ago. The eviction notice was served on Nov.19th 2007. The reason behind this is simple. He's now found a new tenant and they want in A.S.A.P. The lanlord also owns the building next door. (Bambino's). When the ownership changed hands in mid-year 2006, the new owners had reservations with NBN as a neighbor. In his quest for the almighty $, he promised them that he would have me out by the end of 2006. When they questioned the lanlord about why I was still here during the first week of Jan.2007, that's when he brought me a notice to vacate by the end of the month. I then offered to leave if that's what he wanted. But, no he wasn't really asking me to leave, but he had allowed the owners to put a clause in their lease that allowed them to terminate if I was still in business after Dec. 31st. This lanlord has continued to accept and cash my rent checks all year long. Does that sound like someone who"s trying to get rid of you? The new tenants wanted me out by the 30th of Nov. and the request was passed to me on Nov. 7th. 23 days to vacate a business is not enough time and that is why we are going to court today.
Ceallach (anonymous) says…
Richard, I only meant that legally an owner doesn't have to justify a decision to change tenants. I wasn't insinuating that you had done something wrong. Many renters in Lawrence have similar experiences. You obviously have a clientÃle that supports you financially and personally. I hope you find a place where you can peacefully operate your legitimate business.
ilovelucy (anonymous) says…
Thank you for the clarification, Richard, and good luck.
Quoting David Corliss: "I wouldn't know him if I saw him walking down the street."
That's his modus operandi. Lies and more lies.
If anyone should be shut down, it should be David Corliss.
He's a piece of work.
WereAllMonkeys (anonymous) says…
David, you suck.
Richard, After this is all over and should it not end well for you, take each of the parties seperatly to different Judge shows. Like take Corliss to Judge Judy and your landlord to Judge Mathis, etc.
Good Luck.
VoiceOfReason (anonymous) says…
I love how they pick and choose which "crimes" to fight. An honest business owner doing no harm to anyone is a target, but the thieving City Commissioners who stole and misappropriated our money "need a class on ethics"? Corliss needs to go. I wonder what dark secrets he's hoping to hide...high heels, maybe?
VoiceOfReason (anonymous) says…
With Corliss's attendance at the illegal closed-door meeting, it already proves he has no understading of the laws which apply to this city. That's an attorney for you. I hope that bodes well for NbN.
Buggie (anonymous) says…
I agree that our judicial system needs to worry about other things . The fact is is that sexual predators that are out there only get probation and they want to fine NbN owner and have him serve jail time for running a business they initially agrees to is a crock.
However, I do not agree with Richards business ethics or practices' either. When going in to find party favors for a bachlorette party Richard asked us upon entering what we were looking for. Well we didnt really know since this is the first gathering of this sort that I had planned. He informed us there was a cover charge to shop in his store if we did not know what we were there to get. So you have to pay to shop there Lawrence. He told us it was because of shoplifters. Thats bull. Its a small store keep an eye on them or get cameras and even if people are stealing dont think they wont pay your cover and walk out with triple that in stolen merchandise. I have not been back and as for Bambinos they can put up a large privacy fence. By the way we left. I should not have to pay to go shopping unless its for the articles I am purchasing.
chungasrevenge (anonymous) says…
The city's law restricts adult novelty stores to be 600 feet from homes, 1,000 feet from churches....... Why further away from churches than homes? Wouldn't the good lord have your back on this?
yellowhouse (anonymous) says…
It is very difficult to be a business owner in this unstable economy.
The level of corruption and Good Ol boy attitude is beyond belief in this city.
The lengths that people in power will go to cover-up the screw ups of officials is also astounding to say the least.
The leaders in this city do not care about who they hurt, how badly they destroy someones life, business, finances, or reputation.
They only care about winning. With no review board there is literally no where to turn when officials in this town become abusive under the color of the law.
It is very sad that so many businesses have to suffer because of this Nazi type Government. I am sure there are more businesses and individuals dealing with the corruption that have just not been made public .
colbern (anonymous) says…
Uhhhh...People? Let's just cut to the chase, for those of you who care to go on, and on, and on, and on..............he has a right to be there. That's that. A lot of people don't like it. That's that. I, and people I know have been there (although THEY would never admit it) and he's a really down-to-earth-guy.
Live and let live. And shut up. Period..............
colbern (anonymous) says…
um. gee....wonder who yellowhouse is?
colbern (anonymous) says…
OMG...People. you can say SO much w/o writing a book. Just because you feel the need to write 3 novels in one sitting, doesn't make you look smart.
Write something short, intelligent, and maybe people will read it. Retarded, I swear....
yellowhouse (anonymous) says…
The road of Justice, is always uphill
We shall persist even though we may tire!
With patience we shall find that still
We are still climbing ever higher!