Opinion ID: 569110
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: down south

Text: 12 In June 1988, some of the same investors purchased a much smaller property at 425-27 South Street, Philadelphia, at which a licensed dance club called Glitters had previously operated. They planned to convert this property into an after-hours dance club known as Down South. Down South opened without a dance hall license and was cited by L & I for this violation. It subsequently applied for a dance hall license on September 19, 1988, but L & I denied the application on October 14, 1988, based on a police department report that recommended disapproval and cited community objections. The police report indicated that neighbors objected to the all-night hours, loud noise, public urination, and trash. On November 10, 1988, Down South appealed this determination to the Review Board, asserting that community objection was an insufficient ground for disapproval but it did not pursue this appeal. 13 After Down South applied for the license, L & I cited it for various fire code violations. In particular, on September 28, 1988, L & I cited it for failure to recharge fire extinguishers and to post conspicuously a sign indicating the maximum occupancy. The notice of violation clearly stated that reinspection would occur within the next 30 days but it also indicated a location at which Down South could obtain the sign. On September 30, 1988, L & I reissued a notice citing the same violations, including the statement [a]ll operations must cease if these violation [sic] are not corrected in the time specified i.e. immediately. The City denied an application for a certificate of occupancy on October 14, 1988, and Down South did not appeal from this denial. The engineer who examined the facility stated that the plans Down South submitted were unacceptable. 14 Down South asserted claims similar to those of After Midnight and, in addition to suing the City and Tayoun, it, like After Midnight, sued certain other public officials and private individuals and organizations but all were dismissed either prior to or at trial and thus are not parties to this appeal. Down South also alleged that the inspections were acts of harrassment which put it out of business as it ran out of money.