Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 2 - November 25,2006 <br /> <br />Z.B. <br /> <br />AdultEntertainment- Ordinance preamble states target is 'secondary effects' <br />Business claims court shouldn't rely on preamble statements <br />Citation: Andy~ Restaurant & Lounge Inc. v. City of Gary, 7th U.S. Circuit <br />Court of Appeals, Nos. 05-2225, 05-2287 & 05-2288 (2006) <br />The 7th U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. <br /> <br />INDIANA (10/11106) - The city of Gary adopted an ordinance regulating <br />sexually oriented businesses. The ordinance's preamble stated that the city <br />had concerns that sexually oriented businesses had "a deleterious effect on <br />both the existing businesses around them and the surrounding residential <br />areas." . <br />By enacting the ordinance, the city wanted "to minimize and control these <br />adverse effects and thereby protect the health, safety, and welfare of the <br />citizenry." Finally, the preamble stated that the ordinance was intended to <br />address "the secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses" while not <br />"suppress[ing] any speech activities protected by the First Amendment of <br />the Constitution." <br />Andy's Restaurant & Lounge LLC, a sexually oriented business, sued the <br />city, challenging the ordinance as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. <br />The court ruled in the city's favor, fInding that the ordinance preamble spelled <br />out the city's intentions clearly.'-. ) <br />Andy's appealed, arguing that the court could not decide the ordinance's <br />intention based on its preamble. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br />The court could base its decision on the ordinance's preamble. <br />The preamble emphasized that the ordinance's purpose was to control the <br />adverse effects of sexually oriented businesses, and the report before the city <br />when it created the ordinance primarily addressed secondary effects. Conse- <br />quently, it was clear that the ordinance was directed toward the secondary <br />effects of adult businesses, not at controlling free speech. <br />Ultimately, the ordinance's preamble was a clear indication of the city's <br />ii11entions in enacting the ordinance. <br />see also: LLEH Inc. v. Wichita County, 289 F.3d 358 (2002). <br />see also: R. V.S. LLC v. City of Rockford, 361 F.3d 402 (2004). <br /> <br />Approval- Platting board bound by earlier dimensional variance decision <br />New landowner wants to build subdivision <br />Citation: Picerne v. Gilman, Rhode Island Superior Court, Washington Co., <br />No. WC04-0128 (2006) <br /> <br />RHODE ISLAND (09/07/06) - Piceme applied to the Town of Hopkinton Plat- <br />ting Board to build a subdivision on his property. <br /> <br />I <br />;.' <br /> <br />,-,--"".,. <br /> <br />@ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. <br /> <br />74 <br />