Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/1996

Home

P~ge 4 -- November 1996 Z.B. spread of sexually transniitted diseases and crime. Before enacting the ordi- nance; the city reviewed research that indicated sexually oriented businesses aggravated prostitution, child pornography, illegal drug activity, and other crimes. It also reviewed studies by real estate appraisers that linked sexually explicit businesses with reduced property values. All the research on which the c'.Ity relied dealt mainly with adult entertainment, including erotic dancing, sexu- ally explicit movie theaters and adult book stores that had peep-show facilities. The business sued, claiming the ordinance violated its First and 14th Amend- ment free speech rights, as well as its fights under the Colorado constitution. The city sued to get an order that would prevent Christie's from operating out- side an industrial zone. The business and the city both asked for judgment without a trial. DECISION: Judgment granted for the business. The ordinance violated the business's free speech rights because it sought to: suppress the sexual messages in the store's inventory. '~ The city had plenty of evidence to support its contention that adult enter- tainment establishments reduced property values and aggravated crime. The ordinance therefore served a legitimate government interest in seeking to miti- gate the adverse effects of adult entertainment. i But Christie's didn't °ffer adult entertainment; all its products were sold or rented for offsite use. As an analogy, the court pointed to liquor-license require- mgnts, which didn't apply the same to bars as to liquor stores. Nor could towns regulate sports arenas as they did sporting goods stores. The establishments addressed in the studies the city reviewed were so dif- ferent from the store's that the city couldn't use them to claim Christie's adversely affected the neighborhood. And if the city couldn't claim that, then any attempt to Iapply the ordinance to Christie's had to be considered an attempt to limit the sexual message of the store's inventory. Doing so violated the business's free speech fights under the U.S. Constitution. . . The city. could use far less restrictive measures to mitigate any adverse effects Christie's might cause, like prohibiting window displays of "indecent" materials, or prohibiting sale of such items to minors. It could' not force the store to move to an industrial zone. '~ ' ILQ Investments Inc. v. City of Rokhester, 816 F. Supp. 516 (1993). Ad~ult Entertainment Was establishment substantially complete before moratorium was enacted? . Steam Heat Ind~ v. Silva, 646 N.y.S'2d 537 (New York) 1996 In August 1994, Steam Heat Inc. ,began building an adult entertainment establishment in Brooklyn. It had most, but not all, of the necessary construc- tion permits. In November 1994, an amendment t~ the New York City Zoning Resolution established a one-year moratorium on the opening of new adult entertainment est~ablishments. Under the resolution, permits for work that had not been done before the moratorium's enactment automatically lapsed. Developers could