Findings and rationale. Based on evidence of the adverse secondary
effects of adult uses presented in hearings and in reports made available
to the City, and on findings, interpretations, and narrowing constructions
incorporated in the cases of City of Littleton v. Z.J. Gifts D-4,
L.L.C., 541 U.S. 774 (2004); City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books,
Inc., 535 U.S. 425 (2002); City of Erie v. Pap's A.M., 529 U.S. 277
(2000); City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986);
Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50 (1976); Barnes v. Glen
Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991); California v. LaRue, 409 U.S.
109 (1972); N.Y. State Liquor Authority v. Bellanca, 452 U.S. 714
(1981); and Sensations, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids, 526 F.3d 291
(6th Cir. 2008); Deja Vu of Nashville, Inc. v. Metropolitan Gov't
of Nashville and Davidson County, 466 F.3d 391 (6th Cir. 2006); Deja
Vu of Cincinnati, L.L.C. v. Union Township Bd. Of Trustees, 411 F.3d
777 (6th Cir. 2005) (en banc); Fantasy Ranch, Inc. v. City of Arlington,
459 F.3d 546 (5th Cir. 2006); City of Chicago V. Pooh Bah Enterprises,
Inc., 865 N.E.2d 133 (III. 2006); Andy's Restaurant & Lounge,
Inc. v. City of Gary, 466 F.3d 550 (7th Cir. 2006); 181 South, Inc.
V. Fischer, 454 F.3d 228 (3rd Cir. 2006); Bronco's Entertainment,
Ltd. v. Charter Twp. of Van Buren, 421 F.3d 440 (6th Cir. 2005); Charter
Twp. of Van Buren v. Garter Belt, Inc., 258 Mich. App. 594 (2003);
Jott, Inc. v. Clinton Twp., 224 Mich. App. 513(1997); Michigan ex
rel. Wayne County Prosecutor v. Dizzy Duck, 449 Mich. 353 (1995);
Z.J. Gifts D-2, L.L.C. v. City of Aurora, 136 F.3d 683 (10th Cir.
1998); ILQ Investments, Inc. v. City of Rochester, 25 F.3d 1413 (8th
Cir. 1994); Little Mack Entm't II, Inc. v. Twp. of Marengo, 2008 WL
2783252 (W.D. Mich. July 17, 2008); Kentucky Restaurant Concepts,
Inc. v. City of Louisville, 209 F. Supp. 2d 672 (W.D. Ky. 2002); Restaurant
Ventures v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't, 60 S.W.3d 572 (Ky.
Ct. App. 2001); Deja Vu of Nashville, Inc., et at v. Metropolitan
Government of Nashville and Davidson County, 274 F.3d 377 (6th Cir.
2001); Ctr. for Fair Public Policy v. Maricopa County, 336 F.3d 1153
(9th Cir. 2003); Bigg Wolf Discount Video Sales, Inc. v. Montgomery
County, 256 F. Supp. 2d 385 (D. Md. 2003); DLS, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga,
107 F.3d 403 (6th Cir. 1997); Brandywine, Inc. v. City of Richmond,
359 F.3d 830 (6th Cir. 2004); Currence v. City of Cincinnati, 28 Fed.
Appx. 438 (6th Cir. Jan. 24, 2002); Broadway Books v. Roberts, 642
F. Supp. 486 (E.D. Tenn. 1986); Bright Lights, Inc. v. City of Newport,
830 F. Supp. 378 (E.D. Ky. 1993); Bamon Corp. v. City of Dayton, 923
F.2d 470 (6th Cir. 1991); Triplett Grille, Inc. v. City of Akron,
40 F.3d 129 (6th Cir. 1994); O'Connor v. City and County of Denver,
894 F.2d 1210 (10th Cir. 1990); Threesome Entertainment v. Strittmather,
4 F. Supp. 2d 710 (N.D. Ohio 1998); Lady J. Lingerie, Inc. v. City
of Jacksonville, 176 F.3d 1358 (11th Cir. 1999); In re Tennessee Public
Indecency Statute, 172 F.3d 873 (6th Cir. Jan. 13 1999)(table); World
Wide Video of Washington, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 368 F.3d 1186 (9th
Cir. 2004); Ben's Bar, Inc. v. Village of Somerset, 316 F.3d 702 (7th
Cir. 2003); Daytona Grand, Inc. v. City of Daytona Beach, 490 F.3d
860 (11th Cir. 2007); Williams v. Morgan, 478 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir.
2007); H&A Land Corp. v. City of Kennedale, 480 F.3d 336 (5th
Cir. 2007); Illinois One News, Inc. v. City of Marshall, 477 F.3d
461 (7th Cir. 2007); G.M. Enterprises, Inc. v. Town of St. Joseph,
350 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2003); Richland Bookmart, Inc. v. Nichols,
137 F.3d 435 (6th Cir. 1998); Spokane Arcade, Inc. v. City of Spokane,
75 F.3d 663 (9th Cir. 1996); Gammoh v. City of La Habra, 395 F.3d
1114 (9th Cir. 2005); People ex rel. Deters V. The Lion's Den, Inc.,
Case No. 04-CH-26, Modified Permanent Injunction Order (III. Fourth
Judicial Circuit, Effingham County, July 13, 2005); Reliable Consultants,
Inc. v. City of Kennedale, No. 4:05-CV-1 66-A, Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law (N.D. Tex. May 26, 2005); and based upon reports
concerning secondary effects occurring in and around sexually oriented
businesses, including, but not limited to, Austin, Texas -1986; Indianapolis,
Indiana - 1984; Garden Grove, California - 1991; Houston, Texas -
1983, 1997; Phoenix, Arizona - 1979, 1995-98; Chattanooga, Tennessee
- 1999-2003; Los Angeles, California -1977; Whittier, California -
1978; Spokane, Washington - 2001; St. Cloud, Minnesota - 1994; Littleton,
Colorado - 2004; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma - 1986; Dallas, Texas - 1997;
Ft. Worth, Texas - 2004; Kennedale, Texas - 2005; Greensboro, North
Carolina - 2003; Amarillo, Texas - 1977; McCleary Report - 2006; New
York, New York Times Square - 1994; Jackson County, Missouri - 2008;
Warren, Michigan - 2005; and the Report of the Attorney General's
Working Group On The Regulation Of Sexually Oriented Businesses, (June
6, 1989, State of Minnesota), the City finds as follows:
1. Sexually oriented businesses, as a category of commercial uses, are
associated with a wide variety of adverse secondary effects including,
but not limited to, personal and property crimes, prostitution, potential
spread of disease, lewdness, public indecency, obscenity, illicit
drug use and drug trafficking, negative impacts on surrounding properties,
urban blight, litter, and sexual assault and exploitation.
2. Sexually oriented businesses should be separated from sensitive land
uses to minimize the impact of their secondary effects upon such uses,
and should be separated from other sexually oriented businesses, to
minimize the secondary effects associated with such uses and to prevent
an unnecessary concentration of sexually oriented businesses in one
area.
3. Each of the foregoing negative secondary effects constitutes a harm
which the City has a substantial government interest in preventing
and/or abating. This substantial government interest in preventing
secondary effects, which is the City's rationale for this ordinance,
exists independent of any comparative analysis between sexually oriented
businesses and non-sexually oriented businesses. Additionally, the
City's interest in regulating sexually oriented businesses extends
to preventing future secondary effects of either current or future
sexually oriented businesses that may locate in the City. The City
finds that the cases and documentation set forth above and relied
on by the City are reasonably believed to be relevant to said secondary
effects.