Are lewd lattes too tart for your taste? Vote with your wallet

This editorial appears in the May 19 Yakima Herald-Republic.

To see (scantily clad baristas) or not to see, that is the question.

Should the city jump in to prevent those offended by provocative dress from being offended? Should we hope that there's a community outcry with men, women and children marching with signs reading "Don't exploit women to sell coffee," to shame or enlighten the business owners and the workers into changing their marketing gimmick?

Or should we just hope that the number of people willing to pay for a look and a latte can't sustain four such area businesses (one is in Union Gap) and that the bikini-bar fad fades away like a summer tan?

Public outcry hasn't been widespread so far. Yakima Mayor Dave Edler and fellow local pastor Cesar Dominguez (his foster son) were both shocked in separate incidents when they saw employees outside their downtown espresso stand on Yakima Avenue dressed, scantily, for work. Edler says he's heard other complaints, too, and has asked the city legal staff to take a look -- at regulations, that is -- to see if the city should be dictating where such businesses can be located.

We took a gander at the city's Public Safety and Morals ordinance: Title 6.10, "Nudity and Seminudity Prohibited on Licensed Premises." It's enough to make a person blush. There are some pretty specific limits to what parts of the body can and can't be exposed in a business that serves alcoholic beverages.

But that doesn't seem to fit the espresso stand conundrum. Neither does the recently created Adult Business ordinance that restricts businesses purveying pornographic videos, books, sex toys and other novelties from being located within 500 feet of schools, churches, public parks and residential areas. (Again, not what these "sexpresso" stands are selling.)

Of course, the new adult business rules don't apply to already established businesses, which were grandfathered in. We'd have to assume that if a similar ordinance were drafted to cover up those semi-covered baristas, the existing shops would be left alone. The sole purpose would be to prevent a "red light" district springing up, with a plethora of such enterprises. (Although, to be a devil's advocate, isn't it easier to avoid such businesses if they are all in a red light district?)

It makes sense for the city to establish ground rules for the types of businesses allowed. But we hesitate to make more of these stands than necessary. Are they tacky? Yes. Are they outrageously offensive to people driving by? So far we haven't seen (in the two seconds it takes to pass by the stand) more than we'd expect to see on a summer day in a public park.

So while we'd encourage employees at these stands to follow the rules and not step outside without a cover-up, spending a lot of city resources on this issue isn't necessary.

Although there is a tendency in this economy not to fault anyone who is trying to make a buck, it's sad that young women's skin is still being used to sell so many things. While we're a bit cynical about the prospects of that ever changing, we hope the employees realize they have far more to offer than steamy service.

So, until Edler and the City Council decide if this is an issue worth considering, we encourage Yakima residents to vote with their wallets. If you don't approve, don't go.

* Members of the Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board are Michael Shepard, Bob Crider, Spencer Hatton and Karen Troianello.