(A) Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to regulate sexually-oriented businesses 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 sexually-oriented businesses 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 made available to the Common 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 Plaza Group Properties, LLC v. Spencer County Plan Commission, 877 N.E.2d 877 (Ind. Ct. App. 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); Andy’s Restaurant & Lounge, Inc. v. City of Gary, 466 F.3d 550 (7th Cir. 2006); Schultz v. City of Cumberland, 26 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (W.D. Wisc. 1998), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 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 (7th Cir. 1989); DiMa Corp. v. Town of Hallie, 185 F.3d 823 (7th Cir. 1999); Graff v. City of Chicago, 9 F.3d 1309 (7th Cir. 1993); North Avenue Novelties, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 88 F.3d 441 (7th Cir. 1996); Chulchian v. City of Indianapolis, 633 F.2d 27 (7th Cir. 1980); Bigg Wolf Discount Video v. Montgomery County, 256 F. Supp. 2d 385 (D. Md. 2003); County of Cook v. Renaissance Arcade and Bookstore, 122 Ill. 2d 123 (1988) (including cases cited therein); 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); Sensations, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids, 526 F.3d 291 (6th Cir. 2008); World Wide Video of Washington, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 368 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2004); 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); Richland Bookmart, Inc. v. Knox County, 555 F.3d 512 (6th Cir. 2009); 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); City of New York v. Hommes, 724 N.E.2d 368 (N.Y. 1999); For the People Theatres of N.Y., Inc. v. City of New York, 793 N.Y.S.2d 356 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005); Taylor v. State, No. 01-01-00505-CR, 2002 WL 1722154 (Tex. App. July 25, 2002); Gammoh v. City of La Habra, 395 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2005); Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C. v. City of Littleton, Civil Action No. 99-N-1696, Memorandum Decision and Order (D. Colo. March 31, 2001); People ex rel. Deters v. The Lion’s Den, Inc., 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 sexually-oriented businesses, 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; Louisville, Kentucky - 2004; 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 Common Council finds:
(1) 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; and
(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 sexually-oriented and non-sexually-oriented businesses. Additionally, the city’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 city. The city finds that the cases and documentation relied on in this chapter are reasonably believed to be relevant to said secondary effects.
(C) Findings. The city hereby adopts and incorporates herein its stated findings and legislative record related to the adverse secondary effects of sexually-oriented businesses, including the judicial opinions and reports related to such secondary effects.
(Prior Code, § 118.01) (Ord. G-09-15, passed 12-14-2009)