(A) Purpose. It is the purpose of this subchapter to regulate sexually-oriented businesses in order to promote the health, safety, morals, 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 subchapter 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 subchapter 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 subchapter 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 Board of Commissioners, and on findings, interpretations, and narrowing constructions incorporated in the cases of:
(1) City of Littleton v. Z.J. Gifts D-4, LLC, 124 S.Ct. 2219 (June 7, 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);
(2) Schultz v. City of Cumberland, 26 F.Supp.2d 1128 (W.D. Wise. 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 (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, 633 F.2d 27 (7th Cir. 1980); Bzgg 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); 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); People ex rel Deters v. Effingham Retail 27, Inc., No. 04-CH-26 (4th Judicial Circuit, Effingham County, Ill., June 13,2005); Annex Books, Inc., v. City of Indianapolis, No. 1:03-CV-918, summary judgment order, Aug. 27, 2004 and Order Denying Motion to Alter or Amend, Mar. 31, 2005 (S.D. Ind.); Andy’s Lounge et al. v. City of Gary, No. 2:01-CV-327, order granting summary judgment, Mar. 31, 2005 (N.D. Ind.); LLEH, Inc., v. Wichita County, 289 F3d 358 (5th Cir. 2002); 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); Abilene Retail #30, Inc., v. Board of Commissioners, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30491 (D. Kan., Dec. 1,2005); Casanova Entm’t Group, Inc., v. City of New Rochelle, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 2589 (2nd Cir., Jan. 31, 2006); Heideman v. South Salt Lake City, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 2745 (Feb. 2, 2006); and
(3) 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; Minneapolis, Minnesota -1980; Los Angeles, California - 1977; Whittier, California - 1978; Spokane, Washington - 2001; St. Cloud, Minnesota - 1994; Littleton, Colorado - 2004; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma -1986; Dallas, Texas - 1997; Greensboro, North Carolina - 2003; Amarillo, Texas - 1977; 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 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 subchapter, 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 subchapter are reasonably believed to be relevant to said secondary effects.
(Ord. 2005-11, passed 12-28-2005; Ord. 2006-03, passed 2-16-2006)