(A) Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to regulate adult entertainment establishments in order to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the county, and to establish reasonable and uniform regulations to prevent the deleterious secondary effects of adult entertainment establishments within the county. The provisions of this chapter have neither the purpose nor effect of imposing a limitation or restriction on the content or reasonable access to any communicative materials, including sexually-oriented materials. Similarly, it is neither the intent nor effect of this chapter to restrict or deny access by adults to sexually-oriented materials protected by the First Amendment, or to deny access by the distributors and exhibitors of sexually-oriented entertainment to their intended market. Neither is it the intent nor effect of this chapter to condone or legitimize the distribution of obscene material.
(B) Findings and rationale. Based on evidence of the adverse secondary effects of adult uses presented in hearings and in reports made available to the Fiscal Court, and on findings, interpretations, and narrowing constructions incorporated in the cases of City of Littleton v. ZJ. Gifts D-4, LLC, 541 U.S. 774 (2004); City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425 (2002); City of Erie v. Pap’s AM, 529 U.S. 277 (2000); City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986); Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50 (1976); Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991); California v. LaRue, 409 U.S. 109 (1972); N.Y. State Liquor Authority v. Bellanca, 452 U.S. 714 (1981); and Sensations, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids, 526 F.3d 291 (6th Cir. 2008); 729, Inc. v. Kenton County Fiscal Court, 515 F.3d 485 (6th Cir. 2008); Deja Vu of Nashville, Inc. v. Metropolitan Gov 7 of Nashville & Davidson County, 466 F.3d 391 (6th Cir. 2006); Deja Vu of Cincinnati, LLC, v. Union Township Bd. of Trustees, 411 F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 2005) -en banc); Daytona Grand, Inc. v. City of Daytona Beach, 490 F.3d 860 (11th Cir. 2007); Williams v. Morgan, 478 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2007); H&A Land Corp. v. City of Kennedale, 480 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2007); Illinois One News, Inc. v. City of Marshall, 477 F.3d 461 (7th Cir. 2007); G.M. Enterprises, Inc. v. Town of St. Joseph, 350 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2003); Spokane Arcade, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 75 F.3d 663 (9th Cir. 1996); DLS, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, 107 F.3d 403 (6th Cir. 1997); Currence v. City of Cincinnati, 28 Fed. Appx. 438 (6th Cir. Jan. 24, 2002); Broadway Books v. Roberts, 642 F. Supp. 486 (E.D. Tenn. 1986); Bright Lights, Inc. v. City of Newport, 830 F. Supp. 378 (E.D. Ky. 1993); Ben’s Bar, Inc. v. Village of Somerset, 316 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2003); Richland Bookmart v. Nichols, 137 F.3d 435 (6th Cir. 1998); Center for Fair Public Policy v. Maricopa County, 336 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2003); In re Tennessee Public Indecency Statute, 172 F.3d 873 (6th Cir. Jan. 13 1999)(table); Bamon Corp. v. City of Dayton,, 923 F.2d 470 (6th Cir. 1991); Triplett Grille, Inc. v. City of Akron, 40 F.3d 129 (6th Cir. 1994); O’Connor v. City and County of Denver, 894 F.2d 1210 (10th Cir. 1990); Deja Vu of Nashville, Inc. et al. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, 274 F.3d 377 (6th Cir. 2001); Z.J. Gifts D-2, LLC v. City of Aurora, 136 F.3d 683 (10th Cir. 1998); ILQ Investments, Inc. v. City of Rochester, 25 F.3d 1413 (8th Cir. 1994); World Wide Video of Spokane, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 227 F. Supp. 2d 1143 (E.D. Wash. 2002); Threesome Entertainment v. Strittmather, 4 F. Supp. 2d 710 (N.D. Ohio 1998); Bigg Wolf Discount Video Sales, Inc. v. Montgomery County, 256 F. Supp. 2d 385 (D. Md. 2003); Kentucky Restaurant Concepts, Inc. v. City of Louisville and Jefferson County, 209 F. Supp. 2d 672 (W.D. Ky. 2002); Restaurant Ventures of Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov’t, 60 S.W. 3d 572 (Ky. App. 2001); Mr. B’s Bar & Lounge, Inc. v. Louisville, 630 S.W.2d 564 (Ky. App. 1981); Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Jameson, 215 S.W.3d 9 (Ky. 2007); World Wide Video of Washington, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 368 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2004); Gammoh v. City of La Habra, 395 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2005); People ex rel. Deters v. The Lion’s Den, Inc., Case No. 04-CH-26, Modified Permanent Injunction Order (111, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Effingham County, July 13, 2005); Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. City of Kennedale, No. 4;05-CV-166-A, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (N.D. Tex. May 26,2005); and based upon reports concerning secondary effects occurring in and around adult entertainment establishments, including, but not limited to, Austin, Texas - 1986; Indianapolis, Indiana - 1984; Garden Grove, California - 1991; Houston, Texas - 1983, 1997; Phoenix, Arizona - 1979, 1995-98; Chattanooga, Tennessee - 1999-2003; Los Angeles, California - 1977; Whittier, California - 1978; Spokane, Washington - 2001; St.Cloud, Minnesota - 1994; Littleton, Colorado - 2004; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma - 1986; Dallas, Texas - 1997; Ft. Worth, Texas - 2004; Kennedale, Texas - 2005; Greensboro, North Carolina - 2003; AmariJlo, Texas - 1977; Hillsborough county, Florida - 2006; New York, New York Times Square - 1994; and the Report of the Attorney General’s Working Group On The Regulation Of Sexually-Oriented Businesses, (June 6, 1989, State of Minnesota), the Fiscal Court finds:
(1) Adult entertainment establishments, as a category of commercial uses, are associated with a wide variety of adverse secondary effects including, but not limited to, personal and property crimes, prostitution, potential spread of disease, lewdness, public indecency, obscenity, illicit drug use and drug trafficking, negative impacts on surrounding properties, urban blight, litter, and sexual assault and exploitation; and
(2) Each of the foregoing negative secondary effects constitutes a harm which the county has a substantial government interest in preventing and/or abating. This substantial government interest in preventing secondary effects, which is the county’s rationale for this chapter, exists independent of any comparative analysis between sexually-oriented and non-sexually-oriented establishments. Additionally, the county’s interest in regulating adult entertainment establishments extends to preventing future secondary effects of either current or future adult entertainment establishments that may locate in the county. The county finds that the cases and documentation relied on in this chapter are reasonably believed to be relevant to said secondary effects.
(C) Findings and legislative record adopted and incorporated. The county adopts and incorporates herein its stated findings and legislative record related to the adverse secondary effects of adult entertainment establishments, including the judicial opinions and reports related to such secondary effects.
(Ord. KOC 1030.3 (2008), passed 12-18-2008)