04-03-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

"secondary effect" regulations have taken a variety of forms. We will attempt • in the following paragraphs to focus upon sane of then. 2. Zoning Regulations In a chain of decisions starting ng with the Young case noted above and continuing through the most recent case of City of Renton (Washington) v. Playtime Theatres, (1986) , the Supreme Court has affirmed the right of cites to use "locational zoning" ordinances to regulate adult businesses without infringing on the constitutional rights of the establishments. A locational zoning ordinance is one where a particular use (eg. adult bookstore, adult theatre, etc.) is limited to various locations within a carunuzity. For example, one city (as Detroit did) might choose to prohibit adult businesses within a 500 foot radius fon another adult business or from another use such as a church, school or residential district. Alternatively, a city might choose to restrict such adult businesses to locating within a particular zone or area of the city - an example would be Boston's famous • • "combat zone". In either case, so long as adult•businesses are left some reasonable opportunity to locate in sane area of the city, the restrictions are viewed simply as conditioning, not prohibiting the activity of the adult bookstores. A third approach which is being attempted in Ann Arbor, Michigan, but which has not undergone scrutiny by the Supreme Court is an approach we will call "apportionment". Unde_r this approach only businesses whose "principal activity" is sexually oriented material are subjected to restrictive zoning regulations. "Principal activity" is defined as a use 111 which accounts for more than 20 per cent of a business's stock in trade, display space, floor space or movie display time per month. The land use theory behind the 20 per cent standard is that the negative impact on business areas seemed to result only frau those businesses which had a high portion of their activity in adult entertainment material. In reviewing the legitimacy of such locational zoning regulations, the courts have tended to examine the following factors: a) Can the regulation be justified in relation to sane "substantial" governmental interest? b) Dees the regulation unreasonably-limit alternative avenues of cenmunication? c) Is there acme rational basis for the regulation other than suppression of free spee h? d) What is the predaninant me tine for enactment of the regulation (one motivating factor is not necessarily determinative) ? e) Are other potentially blighting businesses regulated in a similar fashion? f) Are there adequate findings to support the legislative decision to regulate? g) Is there adequate evidence in the public record to support the findings? h) is adequate land left available for the use to locate sanewbe_re else within the city? • i) If no independent study has been undertaken by the city and the city relies upon studies conducted by other communities to identify adverse secondary effects, are the studies "relevant" to the city's situation?