City Council! Massage Parlors! Scandal?

We didn't have a chance to make it down to the Pasadena City Council meeting last night, Aaron Proctor's debut appearance notwithstanding, but we wish we could have been there. Whilst perusing the planned agenda for last night, we came across some a piece of City Council action we would have paid to see: "An Urgency Ordinance Temporarily Prohibiting The Issuance of Massage Establishment Permits."

I don't recall any Swedish massage parlors in Pasadena, but apparently there's concern that those soothing fingers are wandering too far afield. Fear not, the City Council is taking action.

Section 1. The provisions of this ordinance temporarily prohibit the issuance of massage establishment permits pursuant to Title 17 fo the Pasadena Municipal Code.

Ah, but wouldn't the problem, if there is one, be stemming from the problem of the current over-friendly masseuses in town? No matter, the Council has an answer to the problem. They're going to "study whether a distance requirement between massage establishments and residential zones may reduce the secondary effects commonly associated with massage establishments on the residential neighborhoods..."

Huh? Are we talking about the same "secondary effects?" Are they worried that too many excessively-massaged customers are...walk-ins?

As a pleased recipient of very non-scandalous massages from a fine Pasadena establishment, I'm more than a little confused as to the animating principle of this proposal. Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning, shall we say, exotic massage techniques. But were if the pernicious effect of the massage parlors is, in fact, the tendency for this to occur, how does would a distance requirement discourage the practice?

Do let us know if I've missed something. And we'll redouble our efforts to make it to every City Council meeting.