My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2005/06/15 Council Agenda Packet
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2005
>
2005/06/15 Council Agenda Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/24/2017 2:25:37 PM
Creation date
2/10/2017 11:05:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Agenda Packet
Date
6/15/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
901
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
SUMMARY OF LEGAL ISSUES AND THE <br />EXPERIENCE ELSEWHERE <br />The concern about the presence of adult businesses in the midst of American <br />cities dates at least from the decades following the Second World. War when a <br />recognition of their impact upon surrounding land values and a growing indignation <br />about their effect on communities became widespread. By the early 1990's the <br />regulation of adult use businesses and entertainment establishments had become a <br />serious issue for communities across the United States -This is reflected in a number <br />of studies and public testimony ,showing a relationship between adult use <br />establishments on -the one hand, and declining property values, crime and <br />neighborhood deterioration on the. other. It Is these "secondary effects" which the <br />Supreme Court and other federal and state courts take into account when ruling on <br />the efforts of communities to regulate these businesses. <br />The present study is not a legal treatise—though it does --review some .legal <br />precedents by way of background—but an analysis and documentation of the Impacts <br />of a concentration of adult use establishments on the Times Square area. <br />The major questions on this subject for a`court are whether any limitation on <br />adult uses is based on content, or whether it is based on the secondary effects of <br />these uses on the surrounding community. There have been a number of instances <br />in the last years in which federal courts have found adult use zoning restrictions to be <br />acceptable, if they have been motivated by a desire to protect neighborhood quality, <br />-as contrasted with an impermissible desire to ban the message purveyed by the adult <br />uses.. It appears. that :courts will accept restrictions If.. they serve -..a "substantial <br />govemment interest if any statute is narrowly drawn to achieve that end, and if <br />there are "reasonably available alternative avenues of communication".:."Substantial <br />goverment interest" has been defined to.* include reasonable attempts by <br />municipalities to reduce urban blight and to -preserve neighborhood character. <br />"Alterative avenues of communication" requires that there be enough other -places <br />In the city for the relocation of these"establishments..-The availability of such places <br />needs to- be shown in court as a matter .of fact.'- <br />Some <br />act: <br />Some cities have employed a variety of regulatory mechanisms. They have <br />created special use zoning districts; they have required that adult uses be located at <br />specified distances from residences, schools, churches, or business and commercial <br />districts; and they have required operators of regulated establishments to obtain <br />licenses or permits. Some illustrations are: <br />• Detroit's adoption of an "anti-skid row" zoning ordinance to disperse and/or <br />bar from designated areas the establishment of a broad array of designated <br />businesses, includingiadult uses. These restrictions were supported by studies of <br />secondary effects. <br />EVER00189 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.