|
<br />7./3 I
<br />
<br />,-<Ul.:r.:rl::;. CollJborJring wich che city pl.1Or1lng Jcpanmcnc. Huw mUl.:h ~pacr.: is t=nough co J.ccornmoJJ.n: ;JJuh bll.\lrl~~'-) .
<br />GiuliJni issued a 65-page proposallasr September char without leuing them overrun [he communiry-or be percelve-u ...; I
<br />recommended prohibiring sexually oriented businessl:S from as doing so~ Thac concern arises from J series of U.S. Supreme _
<br />loc;uing within 500 feer of residences. schools. houses of Court cases char are worth reviewing briefly.
<br />worship. or each ocher. Giuliani also proposed a mOr.lcorium, Ultimately, [he line: of rdevanc cases goes back ro Young v. I
<br />which c:nds November 30, on the opening of any new adulc Am~rican A1ini Th~atr~J, Inc., 427 U.S. 50. 95 S.Cr. 2240
<br />businesses while [he proposals were being considered. Ciry (t 976). The cicy of Detroit became concerned in the early .
<br />council president Pen:r Vallone SOon produced a separate 1970s abour the rapid growth of aduh bookscores and theaters
<br />proposal. and both met co work our a compromise chat has in depopubted and rioc#devastated are:as. From JUSt cwo such I
<br />b~come the basis of discussion by the city's 36 communiry businesses in 1967. Detroit by 1972 counred 35 coptess bars, 25
<br />boards throughout this year. adult the:m:rs, and 21 adult bookstores, many clustered on
<br />Whae their recommendations have varied, they have leaned major thoroughfares. To cope with this influx, che ciry passed
<br />heavily toward dghtening [he proposed resrricrions, in some an ordinance chat defined adult bookstore, adult theater and I
<br />cases to 1.000 feet. The final proposal, however, stands by the minitheater, and Group wD" cabaret, added these co the list of
<br />500-foot spacing. Marilyn Mammano, the ciry's director of regulated uses, and prohibited them from locating within 500
<br />zoning and urban design, says this plan provides for 492 feet of residences. In addition, adult thearers could not locate
<br />locnions citywide for adult businesses. She notes that tighrening wirhin 1,000 feet of any two other adulr establishments. Two I
<br />the rules further might jeopardize the constitutionality of the adult [hearers challenged the ordinance and, in one case, the
<br />proposed ordinance by making it roo difficult for adult uses to federal district COUrt struck down rhe spacing requiremenrs.
<br />find suitable locations. The proposal also would limit thc size, Detroit responded by amending rhe ordinance co prohibit I
<br />placement, and illumination of business signs on adult location within 500 fect of a residentially zoned area. In the
<br />establishments and limit them to 10,000 square feet. It also other case, however, rhe Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals S"Cruck
<br />would n:quire cxisting nonconforming businesses and signs to down the entire ordinance. .;~.
<br />terminare wirhin ane year, wirh ccrrain excmptians and In a ,consolidar~d appeal, rhe U.S. Supreme Caurt held thar "~'... I
<br />extenSLon procedures. Detroit s zanmg dld nac totally suppress the apporrumry for : ~
<br />Interestingly, of the 177 existing adult businesses, 26 would free expression of the type found in adult theaters andt .It{
<br />be permitted co continue in their prcscm locations, 17 of them therefore, the zoning was valid. Moreover, it sancdoned the ~~'
<br />in Manhattan. Overall, abour 11 percent of rhe city's land area distinct dassifiotion af adulr rheaters wirhin rhe zaning l(, I
<br />would be available for adulr uses, but the spacing requirements ordinance as a special eype of regulated land use. Decroit .~t-l.
<br />would limit thac area in Manhattan to 3.9 percent, wirh higher succeeded because it convinced [he COUrt that the .._~f.:
<br />percentages in the four ather baraughs. cancentmion af the regulated land uses pased a specific threar ,.. I
<br />of deteriorarion ro surroundJng properti~. . ..~:..
<br />Shifting Gears In Columbia In subsequent years, a plerhara af communities natianwide <
<br />While New York City has debated its proposed new ordinance, sought to copy Detroit's ordinance, assuming ir was che magic
<br />Columbia, Somh Carolina, has bom appealed the rejection of buIl~r that would derer the concenrration of adult uses while I
<br />its ordinanc~ and a~op.red a new ?nc to rake it~ place. !hjs dual p~sing consti~urion~ m~ster. The Achil~es heel for man~ ,:"as a
<br />stance has left the: CIty In a precanous legal posltlon as tt seeks to failure to conSider a stgmficant footnote 10 rhe Young decISIon:
<br />respond co public concern about four adult businesses, two near
<br />r~sidencial areas. Th~ sicuacion would be quite different if the ordin.nce had the I
<br />A previous ordinance requiring LOOO-foot separation of ~ff~c( of suppr(:ssing, or great/,Y r~striccing acce:s to, Lawful
<br />d 'Ii h h 1 speech. Her~, however, the Dlstrlct COUrt specdially found th:u
<br />a u!t enrerpnses rom cure es, schoo s, parks, day care centers, ch d' d ~ ch . f" bI' b
<br />. . . . e or Loances 0 not anect e operanon 0 !:Xlstlng esta IS _
<br />a~d r~sldentlal netghbor~oods was overturned III scate court. me:nts, but only the: loarion of ne:w. ones. The:re: are: a myriad of I
<br />Cl~~ulr Judge ~alter Br1S~o,,: ruled early !ast year chat the, locations in ch~ city of Detroit which must be oye:r 1,000 flXc
<br />orClnance effectively prohibIted such bUSInesses from locatIng from e:xisting regula[~d e.Hablishmenrs. This burde:n on Firse
<br />anywhere in the cicy. Two clubs-Chippendolls, which features Amendment rights is slight. (427 U.S. at 71, footnote 35)
<br />nude dancing, and Chasers' Mags-N-Mixers--had been ordered I
<br />ro close. The city had modded its ordinance on that of The upshot of the foomote was a strong hint that no specific
<br />surrounding Richland Couney, but the counry has far more land spacing requirement would pass mustcr as such, bur mat the
<br />available under such restrictions. The cicy is now appealing its teal issue was whether thc spacing requiremenr--or :lny ocher
<br />caSe to (he South Carolina supreme COUrt. method of restricting thc location of adult uses-allowed I
<br />In the meanrime, however, it had.an unenforceable adequate locational opportunities for adult uses so as not to
<br />ordinance. 'Xfhile the cicy planning department recommended suppress protccced freo:: expression.
<br />loosening the testrictions co 750 feet, rhe planning commission Over the next decade, many cities mat had adopted what:
<br />last December w.enr furrherl recommendin? 500 fee~, slightly were, in effect, copycat ordin~nce.s e?count.ered constitutional I
<br />more than one Clry block (450 feet). The Clty councd adopted difficulties in court, often seemg enrlr~ ordmances struck down.
<br />the ordinance on January 18. Unlike in N~ York, however, the Often, the simple reason was chat their ordinances, unlike that .
<br />planning departmenr will not reveal the number or location of in DetteLt, had lefr no adequate room-and in some cases no. ~~'. I
<br />available sites this new rule creates, cicing the curreor lirigation. room at all-for adult uses to operate an)"'r'lhere within che . j;t..
<br />. ....."J
<br />jurisdictional limits. The issue finally came to a head once agam ....:
<br />Location, Location in Ciry afR,",on v. Pbyrim< Th,arm, Inc., 475 U,S, 1132,106, .
<br />.\fammano's concern about the constitutionality of the New S.Ct. 106 (1986). Reneon, a Seaule suburb, had st.ated-1cs ,..~~r I
<br />Yark ardinanc" rdates to.. tricky issue af balance rhat has findings af porentia! blighr on rhe basis of a Searde study rha.r ..:.:~.
<br />plagu,d many cammunltles across rhe counrry In recenr years: led to. sn ordInance substantially different from rhe one .dopred :;*;"
<br />,;\
<br />
<br />...,.. I
<br />2 ,:r~.",~,
<br />
|