Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> II 31/5tJ <br /> I~ As to the "narrowly tailored" requirement. Rehnquist found that the Renton <br /> II ordinance only affected theaters producing unwanted secondary effects and, therefore,- <br /> was satisfactory. .!Q. <br /> ,. The second prong of Renton's "time, place, manner" inquiry __ the availability of <br /> I alternative avenues of communication -- was satisfied by the district court's finding that <br /> 520 acres of land, or more than five percent of Renton, were left available for adult- <br /> I entertainment uses, even though some of that developed area was already occupied <br /> and the undeveloped land was not available for sale or lease. A rnajority of the Court <br /> found: <br /> ~ <br /> I That [adult theater owners] must fend for themselves in the real estate <br /> I rnarket, on an equal footing with other prospective purchasers and lessees, <br /> does not give rise to a First Amendment violation. . " In our view, the First <br /> Amendment requires only that Renton refrain from effectively denying [adult <br /> I theater owners] a reasonable opportunity to open and operate an adult <br /> theater within the city, and the ordinance before us easily meets this <br /> j- requirement. <br /> Id. at 54, 106 S.Ct. at 932. <br /> I <br /> B. Standards and Need for Leqal Zoninq <br /> I <br /> Unlike' Younq, the Renton case spells out the standards by which zoning of <br /> I sexually oriented businesses should be tested. Renton and several lower court <br /> decisions rendered in its wake suggest that the two most critical areas by which the <br /> i ordinances will be judged are 1) whether there is evidence that ordinances were <br /> enacted to address secondary impacts on the cornmunity, and 2) whether there are <br /> , enough locations still available for sexually oriented businesses so that zoning is not <br /> just a pretext to eliminate pornographic speech. 1 0/ <br /> [I 1Q/ Of 11 recent post-Renton adult-entertainment zoning decisions by federal courts, <br /> five invalidated ordinances, three upheld ordinances and three ordered a remand <br /> [I to district court for further proceedings. Zoning ordinances were struck in Avalon <br /> Cinema Corp. v. Thom~son, 667 F.2d 659 (8th ir. 1987)( city council failed to offer <br /> lie (Footnote 10 ContInued on ext Page) <br /> -35- <br /> 'I <br />