|
�h¢ ��'��Y� d97
<br />,'o ����� ����������
<br />� ����� �����
<br />by �aedea�ch S. Lane III
<br />' ` �ng the Supreme Court's Re�iton
<br />d�_ <�z�, courts have looked at whether a
<br />municipality's zoning unfairly restricts the
<br />nuznber oF aduIt buszuesses that can iii Eact
<br />operate wi[hin the municipality.
<br />In 1994, the City oE Charlotte, North
<br />Carolina passed Ordinance No. 3782, the
<br />1n[ent oFwhlch was "to establish reasonable
<br />regulations to prevent a concentration of adult
<br />establishments within che City oC Charlotte
<br />and to separate adult estabtishments €rom...
<br />sensitive uses[.]" Over the nextseveralyears,
<br />the City jousted �vith various adult businesses
<br />over ehe specific provisions of the ordinance.
<br />The most recent challenge was filed in 2000 by
<br />an adult bookstore, Queen City V�deo &
<br />News, which claims that Charlotte's ordinance
<br />is unconstitutional.
<br />In defending the ordinance, Charlotte City
<br />Attorney Bob Hagerr��nn has raised a novel
<br />argument. Nocing the rise oE the Internet since
<br />the U.S. Supreme Court decided Re�iton, as
<br />�:;:; ;;
<br />well as the populariry of adult ma[erials online,
<br />Hagemann suggests that the Web now consti-
<br />tutes a"reasonable alternative avenue of com-
<br />munica[ion" within the meaning of RenLoit.
<br />Specifically, he argues that when the court is
<br />looking at the abiliry of adult businesses to
<br />locate wichin the City oE Charlotte, the court.
<br />should take into consideration the fact tizat
<br />such businesses can operate in cyberspace
<br />often more easily and less expensively than in
<br />traditional "bricic aud moi�tar" locations.
<br />Closely related to this issue is a recent
<br />decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for d2e
<br />l lth Circuit which held tha[ the City of
<br />Tampa, Florida, cot�ld not shut down the so-
<br />called "Voyeur l�orm," a house equipped with
<br />inore than 20 cameras to broadcast the clothed
<br />and unclothed activities of irs feinale residents
<br />across the Internet. The Court agreed with the
<br />business that because it did not offer adult
<br />en[ertainmenC to members oF the public (i.e.,
<br />ctrstomers actually entering onto the Voyenr
<br />Borm property), il was not an adnit use busi-
<br />ness within the meaning of the Tampa zoning
<br />ordinance. What this suggests is that adult
<br />businesses may be ab�e to operate in virtually
<br />any zone in a municipality, so long as they con-
<br />duc� their business online.
<br />In the City of Charlotte's motion for sum-
<br />mary judgmene, Atcorney Hageznann conceded
<br />�hat it would probably noc be constitutional
<br />for a municipality to pass a regulation that
<br />eliminated all physical locations For adult busi-
<br />nesses; the fact thac adult businesses flourish
<br />online is not sufficient justification to baz
<br />them com�letety within a city's borders.
<br />What the City was arguing instead was that
<br />the existence and populariry of the Internet
<br />can be used to suppart a more rest�icrive
<br />zoning ordinance.
<br />The Court denied the City's motion for
<br />summary judgment, and also rejected an
<br />ef£ort by Queen Ciry Video � News to bar any
<br />testimony about the viabiiiry of the Ineernet
<br />as an alternative avenue of cocnmunication.
<br />The case is currently set for a bench trial in
<br />[he U.S. District Court in Charlotte this Fall.
<br />For more informatior�, contact Charlotte City
<br />A[torney Bob Hagemann at:
<br /><rhagemann@ci. charlo tte.nc.us>.
<br />Frederick S. Larte III is tiie ni�tiior of "Obscene
<br />Profits: Enfreprene��rs of Por�lograpliy in the
<br />Cyber� Age" ai�d "The Na7ied Employee: How Tecii-
<br />itology Is Contprot7xisi�xg Worhplace Privctcy"
<br />(nvailnble tli�•otiigli Amnzo�i.com).
<br />PLANNING CONiMISSIONERS JOURNAL SPECIAL RE1'RiNT COLLECTIONS
<br />� � � ,� ;
<br />� �.
<br />� �/ � � � � �� �/� � � ,� `"�`� � �� � � � ,,3 , ! �;
<br />,�. �- � � z �.a ..� x .s F � � �
<br />� T
<br />° � �,�_;_� � ��.
<br />� � b. _..__ � � u �.� M.
<br />�s
<br />� , � : � ,;
<br />Short articles on basic planning Iaw
<br />topics written by experienced land
<br />use lawyers. Covering: spot zoning,
<br />due process, zoning variances,
<br />property rights, PUDs, speciai per-
<br />mits, land use findings, the role of
<br />the lawyer, and more.
<br />Availc�ble to PCJ si�I�scribers foi�
<br />$ 18.90
<br />Catl our office at:
<br />`� Planne�cs�leb
<br />� ���
<br />A coIlection of Greg Dale's "Ethics
<br />6� the Planning Cornmission"
<br />columns frorn the past tezz years.
<br />It includes articles on conflicts of
<br />interest, ex-parte contacts, bias,
<br />accepting gifts, site visits, and
<br />many other concerns.
<br />Avcai2able to PCJ si:bscribers for
<br />$ 12.60
<br />1-888-475-3328 (tolt free), or� order fYOm
<br />r�����. _f_ ; .: i �r. :•� ; � �� � r :_ :r= � �� ��=r;
<br />�s�c Plan ° � 'I'�o�
<br />PCJ articles focusing on basic plan-
<br />ning tools, including preparing the
<br />comprehensive plan, zoning basics,
<br />developing capital improvement
<br />programs, essentials of subdivision
<br />��
<br />ia�eEdty a �7t�s�r f nni.
<br />regularion, the
<br />use of maps and
<br />citizen surveys,
<br />and more.
<br />Available to PCJ
<br />subscribers for
<br />$ 17.55
<br />PLANNIiVG CON[M15510N ERS JOURN AL / NUMBER 51 / SUMMER Z003
<br />
|