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 city, and to establish reasonable and uniform regulations to prevent the deleterious secondary effects of adult entertainment establishments within the city. 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 provided to the city council, and on findings, interpretations, and narrowing constructions incorporated in the cases of 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); City of Erie v. Pap's A.M., 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, 2008 WL 2097410 (6th Cir. May 20, 2008); Fantasyland Video, Inc. v. County of San Diego, 505 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2008); Farkas v. Miller, 151 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 1998); Jakes, Ltd. v. City of Coates, 284 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2002); BZAPS, Inc. v. City of Mankato, 268 F.3d 603 (8th Cir. 2001); SOB, Inc. v. County of Benton, 317 F.3d 856 (8th Cir. 2003); Scope Pictures v. City of Kansas City, 140 F.3d 1201 (8th Cir. 1998); Excalibur Group v. City of Minneapolis, 116 F.3d 1216 (8th Cir. 1997); ILQ Invs. v. City of Rochester, 25 F.3d 1413 (8th Cir. 1994); Ambassador Books & Video v. City of Little Rock, 20 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 1994); Alexander v. Minneapolis, 928 F.2d 278 (8th Cir. 1991); John Doe v. Minneapolis, 898 F.2d 612 (8th Cir. 1990); Thames Enters. v. St. Louis, 851 F.2d 199 (8th Cir. 1988); Heideman v. South Salt Lake City, 348 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2003); United States v. Evans, 272 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 2002); United States v. Mueller, 663 F.2d 811 (8th Cir. 1981); United States v. Frederickson, 846 F.2d 517 (8th Cir. 1988); Ctr. for Fair Public Policy v. Maricopa County, 336 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2003); Lady J. Lingerie, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 176 F.3d 1358 (11th Cir. 1999); 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); North Avenue Novelties, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 88 F.3d 441 (7th Cir. 1996); Williams v. Morgan, 478 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2007); Z.J. Gifts D-2, L.L.C. v. City of Aurora, 136 F.3d 683 (10th Cir. 1998); 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); Daytona Grand, Inc. v. City of Daytona Beach, 490 F.3d 860 (11th Cir. 2007); Green v. City of St. Paul, 1999 WL 376099 (8th Cir. 1999); Deja Vu of Nashville, Inc. v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, 274 F.3d 377 (6th Cir. 2002); Fantasy Ranch, Inc. v. City of Arlington, 459 F.3d 546 (5th Cir. 2006); G.M. Enterprises, Inc. v. Town of St. Joseph, 350 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2003); Richland Bookmart, Inc. v. Nichols, 137 F.3d 435 (6th Cir. 1998); Spokane Arcade, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 75 F.3d 663 (9th Cir. 1996); MRM, Inc. v. City of Davenport, 290 N.W.2d 338 (Iowa 1980); City of Lincoln v. ABC Books, Inc., 470 N.W.2d 760 (Neb. 1991); Gammoh v. City of La Habra, 395 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2005); People ex rel. Deters v. Effingham Retail #27, Inc. d/b/a The Lion's Den Adult Superstore, Case No. 04-CH-26, Modified Permanent Injunction Order (Ill. 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; Amarillo, Texas - 1977; Jackson County, Missouri - 2008; 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 city council 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, traffic, noise, urban blight, litter, and sexual assault and exploitation.
2. Each of the foregoing negative secondary effects constitutes a harm which the city has a substantial government interest in preventing and/or abating. This substantial government interest in preventing secondary effects, which is the city's rationale for this chapter, exists independent of any comparative analysis between adult and nonadult businesses. Additionally, the city'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 city. The city finds that the cases and documentation relied on in this chapter are reasonably believed to be relevant to said secondary effects.
The city hereby adopts and incorporates herein its stated findings concerning the secondary effects of adult entertainment establishments and the legislative record documents supporting same. (Ord. 69-08, 10-20-2008)