Ancient motives keep out ink
By NORA SORENA CASEY Special to the Daily Press
DOWNTOWN A mysterious law approved in the 1960s lies unnoticed in the Santa Monica municipal code, but its far-reaching effects leaves Santa Monica streets, arms, and legs untouched by the marks of tattoo parlors.
Municipal code 4.08.730 states that “No person shall manage, conduct, carry on, or participate in, directly or indirectly, the business of ‘Tattooing.’” The ordinance was passed on March 28, 1961, and was modified in the 80s, according to the City Clerk’s Office.
The distant origins of the bill may explain why most Santa Monicans don’t even notice the lack of tattoo parlors in the city, although there is a marked change as soon as one enters Venice, where there are over 30 tattoo shops.
“That’s been there for years and years and years,” City Councilmember Bob Holbrook, a lifelong resident, said of the ordinance.
Holbrook notes that Santa Monica zoning also doesn’t allow marijuana pharmacies and limits the number of pawn shops. However, while Holbrook felt the reasoning behind prohibiting marijuana pharmacies was self-evident, he was not sure what prompted Santa Monicans of the ‘60s to keep tattooing away.
According to City Hall’s Planning Manager Paul Foley, the ordinance is not a land use, zoning issue but falls under the Public Welfare, Morals and Policy section of the municipal code. The ordinance is in the “Disorderly Conduct, Nuisances, etc.” chapter of the code, tucked in between a prohibition on horse racing and aggressive solicitation.
Local tattoo artists in Venice seemed to understand why city officials would want to keep parlors away, even though they may not agree.
“To me what that has to do with is … they had a certain way of taking care of shops that wasn’t up to standards,” Cort Chatagnier, a tattoo artist, said. “There’s kind of a movement to make cleaner shops. Hopefully one day when we change the face of what a tattoo shop is, maybe (the law) will change.”
This movement to a more consistently professional level of tattoo parlors parallels a change in the clientele and social status of tattoos.
“They were only for bikers and prisoners back in the day,” Jeff Gombosi, a tattoo artist, said. “Now society is more adapting with anybody getting tattoos.”
The social stigma that has been historically associated with tattoo’s may also be a reason Santa Monicans prohibited them.
“The ban on tattoo parlors may have been imposed for a very good reason,” speculated Miriam Mack, economic development director for City Hall. “To try to limit opportunities for criminal activity.”
The heavily tattooed Ron Day was working and living in Santa Monica in the ‘60s, and remembers a rougher downtown area filled with bars, gangs, and prostitution.
“Where Downtown Santa Monica is now, that wasn’t there. They hired one of the local street gangs to keep the bums away,” Day claimed. “Now on Sundays they give valet bike parking.”
Day recalled that in those days tattoos were almost exclusively associated with bik-ers and gangs. The quality of shops and health in the tattoo profession was highly questionable.
“In the old days they’d use one needle over and over and over,” he said. “Now they’re more sanitary, they’re cleaner, they’re regulated. I don’t know why Santa Monica wouldn’t allow it.”
Day’s belief is echoed by a number of citizens. Santa Monica resident Paul Fleck does not have any tattoos. He acknowledges that people may view tattoo parlors negatively and want to discourage that social culture. However, he feels that it is more important for Santa Monica to fully embrace free speech and citizens’ rights.
Julia Lambert, who has lived in Santa Monica for the last five years, is also opposed to the ordinance and attributed it to a common belief that tattoo parlors might attract the “wrong type” of people.
Gombosi is sure that if Santa Monica were to allow tattoo parlors it would not change the social scene. He recalls opening shops in areas on the East Coast where residents were against the idea. He says that after professional tattoo parlors were opened there were only positive benefits. He says that a good shop attracts new clientele to an area, encouraging commerce and adding a new cultural element.
“No one has ever come to the council and asked for a tattoo parlor,” Holbrook said simply.
No records are kept of people who may have applied for a tattoo parlor, since no licenses were ever issued, according to the Finance Department at City Hall.
The staff reports for the tattoo ordinance have also been lost in the sands of time, meaning there is no way to know definitively what issues prompted a ban in the city.
“Like any other ordinance or city policy it may be appropriate from time to time to revisit it,” Mack said.
As tattoo parlors and culture change over time, they may have a different social and economic relevance than they did more than 40 years ago, but Santa Monica soil will not bear witness to any changes, harms, or helps since there are no parlors here.
“I never really noticed there weren’t any here,” Lambert said. “But I guess it doesn’t really affect us too much because you can just go like a mile south.”
Robbie Black, a Venice tattoo artist at Tattoo Asylum, believes that the culture of Venice has been shaped by ordinances like the Santa Monica one. He says that the overwhelming number of parlors in Venice — there are approximately 12 on the boardwalk alone — is due to the fact that parlors are not allowed in other beach cities.
“Maybe it’s a mixed blessing because it does bring people here,” Black said. “It also makes for cheap tattoos, less quality work, and dirty shops just because there are so many people here trying to get the same tattoo.”
Proper health and sanitation practices set apart professional shops and are very important in the business, Black said. He believes that if Santa Monica were to allow parlors they should be sure to keep up a professional standard.
“It’s a sacred art form and you’re tapping into someone else’s bloodstream,” said another Tattoo Asylum employee who goes by the name Lucky M. F. “Not only that, you’re changing someone’s life and it’s something they gotta be happy with when they’re 80, because it’s still gonna be there.”
Happily tattooed citizen Kelsey May was appalled that Santa Monica would not allow parlors, regardless of social or health issues.
“Why Santa Monica?” she asked. “They should tell them off ….”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on July 12, 2008. Read the original PDF.