Laserfiche WebLink
�? L <br />Appendix B <br />Phoenix, Arizona <br />Vie City of Phoenix <br />comparing three study <br />control areas without <br />were 43 percent higher, <br />related crimes were over <br />St. Paul Minnesota <br />study investigated the incidence of crime by <br />areas containing adult businesses with three <br />adult businesses. They concluded that crimes <br />violent crimes were 4 percent higher, and sex <br />500 percent higher in the study areas. <br />The planning department in St. Paul, conducted a study entitled Effects <br />on Surroundinq Area of Adult Entertainment Businesses. The study <br />found that. there was a statistically significant correlation between <br />diminished housing values and crime rates and the location of adult <br />businesses. The study also concluded that there was a stronger <br />correlation with neighborhood deterioration after the establishment of <br />an adult business. <br />B. LEGAL BASIS <br />Regulation of adult businesses has taken a variety of forms in cities <br />throughout America. Boston, Massachusetts, for example, has adopted <br />an ordinance that restricts all adult businesses to 'a single <br />geographic area known as the "Combat Zone". Detroit, Michigan,on the <br />other hand, enacted an ordinance intended to disperse adult <br />businesses. This ordinance, passed in 1972, prohibited adult <br />entertainment businesses within 500 feet of a residential area or <br />within 1000 feet of any two other regulated uses. The term "regulated <br />use" applied to a variety of businesses, including adult theaters, <br />adult bookstores, cabarets, bars, taxi dance halls, and hotels. At. <br />this time, only Seattle and Renton, Washington have ordinances similar <br />in nature to the Boston ordinance. However, several cities have <br />adopted regulations similar to those enacted in Detroit, which are <br />aimed at dispersing adult entertainment businesses. <br />The Detroit ordinance was legally challenged and ultimately upheld by <br />the United States Supreme Court in 1976. This court case, known as <br />Y -v- American lSini Theaters, Inc., now serves as the primary <br />egal precedent regar ng the use of zoning powers to regulate adult <br />entertainment business. In Young, the Supreme Court held that "even <br />though the First Amendment protects cocmunicaticn in this area <br />(sexually explicit activities) from total suppression, we hold the <br />State may legitimately use the content of these materials as a basis <br />for placing these in a different classification from other movie <br />theaters" . <br />1. McClendon, Bruce W.; Zoning for Adults Only, (Zoning news; <br />American Planning Association, August, 198 ). <br />E V ER00275 <br />W <br />J <br />