Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/01/1997

Home

Page 2 - June 25, 1997 Z.B. Il Adult Entertainment - Can city make proprietors choose between liquor and entertainment licenses? . . Goldrush II v. City of Marietta, Supreme Court of Georgia, Docket Nos. S9QA1494, S96A1496, and S96A1497 (Georgia) 1997 Goldberg, Varsalona, and Tudor each operated adult-entertainment establishments in the city of Marietta, Ga. Though the three establishments had existed for varying lengths of time, they all had entertainment and liquor licenses for the years 1993, 1994, and 1995. In Marietta, businesses had to reapply each year for new liquor and entertainment licenses, which expired on the last day of the year. In 1994, the state adopted a new amendment to its constitution. The amendment gave the state the right to regulate alcoholic beverages and related activities, as authorized by the 21st Amendment, the law that repealed Prohibition and empowered states to restrict alcohol use. In addition, the amendment delegated authority to counties and municipalities "for the purpose of regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the exhibition of nudity, partial nudity, or depictions of nudity in connection with the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages. " In January 1995, the Marietta City Council, acting on the 1994 Georgia amendment, passed an amendment to its ordinance, stating liquor licenses would not be issued to establishments with adult entertainment licenses. Before approving the amendment, the city council examined the effects alcohol-serving, adult-entertainment establishments had on the community, including decreased property values, community "blight," higher crime rates in surrounding areas, and added strain on the criminal justice system. To make its decision, the council relied on testimony of citizens, the police department, and studies from other cities reporting similar problems. The resulting amendment's preamble stated the new law resulted from concerns about the effects on the city, and similar problems experienced by other municipalities. As the city council drafted it, the new adult-entertainment amendment made establishments choose between getting a liquor license or an adult entertainment license. Establishments that already had both licenses for 1995 were nbt subject to the amendment until Dec. 31, 1995, at which time they had to comply with the amended ordinance. As a result of the new law, the three owners didn't get licenses for 1996. They each sued the city, its council members, and the mayor, asking the court to declare the ordinance unconstitutional and to award monetary damages. In addition, Tudor asked the court to order the city to issue the entertainment and liquor licenses. In December 1995, the city and the businesses agreed that the three establishments could continue providing alcohol and adult entertainment until the courts settled the issue. The court consolidated the three cases and granted the city judgment without a trial. It found the legislation was content neutral. For legislation on adult '0& entertainment to be considered content neutral, it had to address the secondary