My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/11/2007
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2007
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/11/2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:41:53 AM
Creation date
7/5/2007 3:11:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
07/11/2007
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
212
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />June 1, 2007 I Volume 1 I No. 11 <br /> <br />Adult Entertainment-Adult bookstores claim new <br />ordinance unconstitutional <br /> <br />County argues ordinance legitimately based on concerns over <br />secondary effects <br /> <br />Citation: Richland Bookman, Inc. v. Knox County, 2007 WL <br />1306520 (E.D. Tenn. 2007) <br /> <br />TEN'NESSEE (OS/02/07)-Richland Bookmart operated an adult <br />book and video store in Knox County for more than 20 years. After <br />a competitor, Knox-ville Adult Video Superstore, opened nearby, Rich- <br />land claimed that the county established a commission to strengthen <br />its adult business regulations. <br />The county hired a lawyer who was connected to the National <br />Family Legal Foundation to "help :fight sexual-oriented businesses." <br />Richland described the lawyer as a "crusader" against adult business- <br />es. The lawyer drafted a new, 21-page regulation that required licens- <br />ing and regulation of several types of adult businesses. <br />The county's Intergovernmental and Finance commission held <br />a hearing on the proposed ordinance and heard from residents on <br />both sides of the issue. The commission also heard evidence of sec- <br />ondary effects of sexually oriented businesses. At the next regularly <br />scheduled commission meeting, the county voted to approve the or- <br />dinance. At the next commission meeting, more evidence was heard <br />both for and against the measure, and, ultimately, the -ordinance <br />gained final approval. <br />Both bookstores challenged the regulation in court, arguing that it <br />violated state and U.S. constitutional provisions. The stores asked the <br />court for an injunc-Lion against the county and to declare the ordinance <br />lLTlconstitutionaL The county asked the court to dismiss the claims. <br /> <br />Decision: Request for dismissal denied. <br /> <br />The county claimed to base its decision to pass the ordinance mostly <br />on the evidence of the secondary effects of sexually oriented busi- <br />nesses. In the preamble to the ordinance, the county noted: "Sexual- <br />ly-oriented businesses, as a category of commercial uses, [were] asso- <br />ciated with a wide variety of adverse secondary effects including, but <br />not limited to, personal and property crimes, prostitution, potential <br />spread of disease, lewdness, public indecency, obscenity, illicit drug . <br />use and di-ug trafficking, negative impacts on property values, urban <br />blight, litter, and sexllal assault and exploitation." <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />95 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.