Amend Chapter 4, Article 4, Section 18.5 Regarding Adult Business

Home Browse Search

these legitimate governmental interests. It is not the intent of the City to place any impermissible burden on any constitutionally protected expression or expressive conduct by the enactment or enforcement of such regulations; and The City Council has considered the decisions of the United States Supreme Court regarding local regulation of sexually oriented businesses, including but not limited to, Young v. American Mini- Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50 (1976) reh. denied 429 U.S. 873; Renton v. Playtime Theatres, 475 U.S. 41(1986) reh. denied 475 U.S. 1132; FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990); and Barnes v. Glen Theatre, 501 U.S. 560 (1991); and City of National City v. Wiener, et al, 3 Cal.4th 832 (1993). Topanga Press, Inc., et al v. City of Los Angeles, 939 F.2d 1524 (1993); and The Common Council and staff find that a number of courts have upheld distance limitations between performers and patrons, prohibitions against physical contact between performers and patrons, and direct payment and receipt of gratuities between performers and patrons at sexually oriented business establishments that provide live entertainment: BSA, Inc. v. King County, 804 F.2d 1104, 1110-11(9th Cir. 1986) (six feet); Key, Inc. v. Kitsap County, 793 F.2d 1091 (9th Cir. 1986) (ten feet); Zanganeh v. Hymes, 844 F. Supp. 1087, 1091 (D.Md. 1994) (six feet); T-Marc, Inc. v. Pinellas Counfy, 804 F. Supp. 1500, 1506 (M.D.FIa. 1992) (three) feet), DLS, Inc., v. City of Chatanooga, 894 F. Supp. 1140 (E.D. Tenn. 1995) (six feet and prohibiting direct payment and receipt of gratuities); Parker v. Whitfield County, 463 S.E.2d 116 (Ga. 995) (prohibiting tipping and contact between dancers and patrons); and Hang On, Inc.v. City a/Arlington, 65 F.3d 1248 (5th Cir. 1995) (aff cl prohibition on touching or any contact between dancers and patrons); and Zoning, licensing and other police power regulations are legitimate reasonable means of accountability to insure the operator of sexually oriented businesses comply with reasonable regulations and are located in places which minimize the adverse secondary effects which naturally accompany the operation; and The Common Council has determined that location restrictions alone do not adequately protect the health, safety and general welfare of South Bend residents and, thus, believes that certain requirements with respect to the ownership and operation of sexually oriented businesses is in the public interest; and It is not the intent of this ordinance to suppress any speech activities protected by the First Amendment, but to enact a content neutral ordinance which addresses the adverse secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses; and The Common Council does not intend to condone or legitimize the distribution of obscene material, and the Council recognizes that state law prohibits the distribution of obscene materials and encourages state enforcement officials to prosecute such illegal activities in South Bend; and The City Council finds that there would be a deterioration in the quality of businesses which choose to operate in and around such sexually oriented businesses; and The City Council desires to minimize and control these adverse secondary effects and thereby protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens; protect the citizens from increased crime; preserve the quality of life; preserve the property values and the character of surrounding neighborhoods and businesses, deter the spread of urban blight and protect against the threat to health from the spread of 2