Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/06/2003

Home

September 25, 2003 -- Page 5 The ordinance was enacted out of concern over the adverse secondary effects sexually oriented businesses brought to the city and surrounding communities. The evidence also demonstrated the city had a substantial government in- tetrest in adopting and enforcing the ordinance to regulate SOBs. FNally, it was noted there were reasonable alternative avenues of communication for estab- Iishments such as Camelot. Citation: BGHA LLC v. Universal City, 5th U.S. Circtdt Court of Appeals, No. 02-50220 (2003). : The 5th Circuit has jurisdiction over Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. see also: LLEH v. Wichita County, 289 F.3d 358 (2002). AdUlt Entertainment -- Take-home bookstore straddles two zones Constitutionality of ordinance challenged MINNESOTA (8/7/03) -- DiMa Corp. operated "Pure Pleasure," a store sell- ing adult movies, magazines, and books from a location with.in High Forest Township. Al/ materials sold were for take-home consumption, since there were no fac/lifies for viewhag these materials on the premises. The township enacted zoning regulations allowing adult entertainment Uses w/thin highway commercial (HC) districts with certain conditions. The adult entertainment facility had to be located no closer than 1,000 feet from ex/sting res/dent/al zoning districts, areas designated for .fut-,are residential development, churches, schools, or any other adult establishment. The bu/_lding in which the store operated was located in an HC district. However, a 25-foot portion of the building was witt~_n 1,000 feet of an area designated for future residential development by the neighboring city of S tewartville. The store owner sued, challenging the ordinance as a violation of the First' Amendment. The township responded that the ordinance was. valid and asked the court for judgment without a trial. DECISIOtN: Judgment denied. The store could pursue its claims. The court noted a prior case that provided a time, place, and manner re- striction was constitutional if it l) was content-neutral, 2) was designed to serve a substantial government interest, and 3) did not unreasonably limit the alternative avenues of expression. The issue here was the second prong of the test; that is, did the ordinance serve a substantial government interest? The store owner asserted that the township failed to provide evidence dem- onstrating a link between purely take-home adult entertainment and resultant negative secondary effects. Here, the township relied on a prior case to support its positiom'In that case, the government offered a number of studies con- ducted in metropolitan areas about the resultant negatiYe secondary effects of adult entertainment establishments. However, these studies did not address the 111