§ 112.01 PURPOSE; RATIONALE AND FINDINGS.
   (A)   Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to regulate sexually-oriented businesses in order to promote the health, safety, moral, and general welfare of the citizens of the county, and to establish reasonable and uniform regulations to prevent the deleterious secondary effects of sexually-oriented businesses 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)   Rationale and findings. Based on evidence of the adverse secondary effects of adult uses presented in hearings and in reports made available to the Board of Commissioners, and on findings, interpretations, and narrowing constructions incorporated in the cases of:
      (1)   Ginsburg V. U.S., 383 US 463 (1966); Ginsburg V. State, 390 US 629 (1968); Roth V. U.S., 354 U.S. 476 (1957); U.S. V. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968); City of Littleton V. Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C., 541 U.S. 774 (2004); City of Los Angeles V. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425 (2002); Pap’s A.M. V. City of Erie, 529 U.S. 277 (2000); City of Renton V. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986); Young V. American Mini Theatres, 426 U.S. 50 (1976); Barnes V. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991); California V. LaRue, 409 U.S. 109 (1972); Hollywood Theatre Corporation V. City of Indianapolis, 34 NE 2d 28 (IN 1941); Schultz V. City of Cumberland, 26 F.Supp.2d 1128 (W.D. Wise 1998), 228 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2000); Blue Canary Corp. V. City of Milwaukee, 270 F.3d 1156 (7th Cir. 2001); Matney V. County of Kenosha, 86 F.3d 692 (7th Cir. 1996); Berg V. Health & Hospital Corp., 865 F.2d 797 (1989); DiMa Corp. V. Town of Hallie, 185 F.3d 823 (1999); Graff V. City of Chicago, 9 F.3d 1309 (1993); North Avenue Novelties, Inc. V. City of Chicago, 88 F.3d 441 (1996); Chulchian V. City of Indianapolis, 663 F.2d 27 (7th Cir. 1980); Bigg Wolf Discount Video V. Montgomery County, 256 F.Supp.2d 385 (D. Md. 2003); World Wide Video of Washington, Inc. V. City of Spokane, 368 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2004); Ben’s Bar, Inc. V. Village of Somerset, 316 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2003); LLEH, Inc. V. Wichita County, 289 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 2002); People V. Goldsmith, 287 NE 2d 177 (ILL. 1972) ; Logan V. State, 836 NE 2d 467 (IN. 2005); and Albright V. State, 461 NE 2d 744 (IN. 1984);
      (2)   Based upon reports concerning secondary effects occurring in, and around, sexually-oriented businesses, including, but not limited to: Austin, Texas, 1997 and 1986; Indianapolis, Indiana, 1984; Garden Grove, California, 1991; Houston, Texas, 1983 and 1997; Phoenix, Arizona, 1979 and 1995-98; Los Angeles, California, 1977; Whittier, California, 1978; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 1992 and 1986; Dallas, Texas, 1997; Amarillo, Texas, 1977; New York, New York Times Square, 1980 and 1994; and the Report of the Attorney General’s Working Group On The Regulation of Sexually-Oriented Businesses, (June 6, 1989, State of Minnesota); Environmental Research Group of Philadelphia (March 31, 1996); Tucson, Arizona, 1990; Beaumont, Texas, 1982; and One Slip, New York, 1980; and
      (3)   Based upon a review of state statutes, including I.C. 22-14-3-1, I.C. 35-45-4-1, I.C. 35-49-1-9, I.C. 35-49-2-1, I.C. 35-49-3-2, and other statutes, the Board of Commissioners finds:
         (a)   Sexually-oriented businesses, 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;
         (b)   Sexually-oriented businesses should be separated from sensitive land uses to minimize the impact of their secondary effects upon such uses, and should be separated from other sexually-oriented businesses to minimize the secondary effects associated with such uses, and to prevent an unnecessary concentration of sexually-oriented businesses in one area; and
         (c)   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 businesses. Additionally, the county’s interest in regulating sexually-oriented businesses extends to preventing future secondary effects of either current or future sexually-oriented businesses 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.
(Ord. 2006-02, passed 6-19-2006)