(A)
Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to regulate sexually oriented businesses in order to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the city, and to establish reasonable and uniform regulations to prevent the deleterious secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses within the city. The provisions of this chapter have neither the purpose nor effect of imposing a limitation or restriction on the content or reasonable access to any communicative materials, including sexually oriented materials. Similarly, it is neither the intent nor effect of this chapter to restrict or deny access by adults to sexually oriented materials protected by the First Amendment, or to deny access by the distributors and exhibitors of sexually oriented entertainment to their intended market. Neither is it the intent nor effect of this chapter to condone or legitimize the distribution of obscene material.
(B)
Findings and Rationale. Based on evidence of the adverse secondary effects of adult uses presented in hearings and in reports made available to the Common Council, 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); Sewell v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 982 (1978); FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990); City of Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U.S. 19 (1989); and Uniontown Retail #36, LLC v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Jackson County, 950 N.E.2d 332 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011); Plaza Group Properties, LLC v. Spencer County Plan Comm'n, 911 N.E.2d 1264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009); Plaza Group Properties, LLC v. Spencer County Plan Comm'n, 877 N.E.2d 877 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007); Ben's Bar, Inc. v. Village of Somerset, 316 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2003); Andy's Restaurant & Lounge, Inc. v. City of Gary, 466 F.3d 550 (7th Cir. 2006); Blue Canary Corp. v. City of Milwaukee, 270 F.3d 1156 (7th Cir. 2001); Schultz v. City of Cumberland, 228 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2000); Matney v. County of Kenosha, 86 F.3d 692 (7th Cir. 1996); Berg v. Health & Hospital Corp., 865 F.2d 797 (7th Cir. 1989); DiMa Corp. v. Town of Hallie, 185 F.3d 823 (7th Cir. 1999); Graff v. City of Chicago, 9 F.3d 1309 (7th Cir. 1993); North Avenue Novelties, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 88 F.3d 441 (7th Cir. 1996); Chulchian v. City of Indianapolis, 633 F.2d 27 (7th Cir. 1980); Illinois One News. Inc. v. City of Marshall, All F.3d 461 (7th Cir. 2007); G.M. Enterprises, Inc. v. Town of St. Joseph, 350 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2003); Metro Pony, LLC v. City of Metropolis, 2012 WL 1389656 (S.D. 111. Apr. 20, 2012); Imaginary Images, Inc. v. Evans, 612 F.3d 736 (4th Cir. 2010); LLEH, Inc. v. Wichita County, 289 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 2002); Ocello v. Koster, 354 S.W.3d 187 (Mo. 2011); 84 Video/Newsstand, Inc. v. Sartini, 2011 WL 3904097 (6th Cir. Sept. 7, 2011); Flanigan's Enters., Inc. v. Fulton County, 596 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2010); East Brooks Books, Inc. v. Shelby County, 588 F.3d 360 (6th Cir. 2009); Entm't Prods., Inc. v. Shelby County, 588 F.3d 372 (6th Cir. 2009); Sensations, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids, 526 F.3d 291 (6th Cir. 2008); World Wide Video of Washington, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 368 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2004); Peek-a-Boo Lounge v. Manatee County, 630 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2011); 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); Jacksonville Property Rights Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 635 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2011); H&A Land Corp. v. City of Kennedale, 480 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2007); Hang On, Inc. v. City of Arlington, 65 F.3d 1248 (5th Cir. 1995); Fantasy Ranch, Inc. v. City of Arlington, 459 F.3d 546 (5th Cir. 2006); Richland Bookman, Inc. v. Knox County, 555 F.3d 512 (6th Cir. 2009); Bigg Wolf Discount Video Movie Sales, Inc. v. Montgomery County, 256 F. Supp. 2d 385 (D. Md. 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); City of New York v. Hommes, 724 N.E.2d 368 (N.Y. 1999); Taylor v. State, No. 01-01-00505-CR, 2002 WL 1722154 (Tex. App. July 25, 2002); Fantasyland Video, Inc. v. County of San Diego, 505 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2007); Gammoh v. City of La Habra, 395 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2005); Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C. v. City of Littleton, Civil Action No. 99-N-1696. Memorandum Decision and Order (D. Colo. March 31, 2001); 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-166-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; Tucson, Arizona – 1990; 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; Jackson County, Missouri – 2008; Louisville, Kentucky – 2004; New York, New York Times Square – 1994; the Report of the Attorney General's Working Group On The Regulation Of Sexually Oriented Businesses (June 6, 1989, State of Minnesota); Dallas, Texas – 2007; "Rural Hotspots: The Case of Adult Businesses," 19 Criminal Justice Policy Review 153 (2008); "Correlates of Current Transactional Sex among a Sample of Female Exotic Dancers in Baltimore, MD," Journal of Urban Health (2011); "Stripclubs According to Strippers: Exposing Workplace Sexual Violence," by Kelly Holsopple, Program Director, Freedom and Justice Center for Prostitution Resources, Minneapolis, Minnesota; "Sexually Oriented Businesses: An Insider's View," by David Sherman, presented to the Michigan House Committee on Ethics and Constitutional Law, Jan. 12, 2000; Memphis, Tennessee – 2005-2011; and assorted reports and affidavits concerning secondary effects, the Common Council finds:
(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, 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 chapter, exists independent of any comparative analysis between sexually oriented 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 relied on in this section are reasonably believed to be relevant to said secondary effects.
(4)
The city hereby adopts and incorporates herein its stated findings and legislative record related to the adverse secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses, including the judicial opinions and reports related to such secondary effects.
(Ord. 1418-2012; Code 2000 § 112.01)