Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2/~ ,.', I <br />.'. <br /> <br /> <br />r. Four generally-accepted principles of law (. <br />, <br /> <br />A. Activities occurring in an adult entertainment business I <br />are protected by the First Amendment and its provision <br />for freedom of speech. <br />B. A city must allow some reasonable opportunity for adult . <br />businesses to operate. <br />C. Adverse impacts (known in the trade as "adverse secondary <br />effects") resulting from the adult business provide a <br />basis for zoning regulations. The most common adverse I <br />secondary effects are increases in criminal activity and <br />decreases in property values. <br />D. A city can restrict the location of adult entertainment . <br />businesses if the city'S purpose is to minimize those <br />adverse secondary effects. Those restrictions can <br />address the location of adult entertainment businesses <br />with respect to other adult entertainment uses and I <br />special uses (such as churches, schools, and libraries). <br /> <br /> <br />II. Two Really Important U.S. Supreme Court Cases . <br /> <br />A. Youna v. American Mini Theatres. Inc., 427 U.S. 50 _ . <br />(1976). <br /> <br />1. Detroit enacted an "anti-skid row" ordinance C.... <br />designed to prevent the concentration of adult . <br />entertainment businesses in any area of the city. <br />Detroit relied upon a study which found that the <br />concentration of these businesses "tends to attract I <br />an undesirable quantity and quality of transients, <br />adversely affects property values, causes an <br />increase in crime, especially prostitution, and <br />encourage residents and businesses to move else- I <br />where." The ordinance required a 1,000 foot <br />separation between adult entertainment businesses <br />and a 500 foot separation between those businesses . <br />and residential areas. <br />2.. The Court, i!1 a. plurality decision, upheld the <br />ordinance's constitutionality on the basis that <br />it's purpose was the avoidance of "adverse, I <br />secondary effects" rather than the suppression of <br />offensive speech. <br />3. The plurality decision noted that the ordinance was I <br />viewpoint neutral and addressed speech which was <br />"on the border line between pornography and <br />artistic expression" and thus entitled to less I <br />protection than political speech. <br /> <br /> <br />-. <br />2 l <br />. <br />