§ 2-2.5-1. Purpose; rationale and findings.
(a)
Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to regulate sexually oriented businesses in order to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the county, and to establish reasonable and uniform regulations to prevent the deleterious secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses within the county. The provisions of this chapter have neither the purpose nor effect of imposing a limitation or restriction on the content or reasonable access to any communicative materials, including sexually oriented materials. Similarly, it is neither the purpose nor effect of this chapter to restrict or deny access by adults to sexually oriented materials protected by the First Amendment, or to deny access by the distributors and exhibitors of sexually oriented entertainment to their intended market. Neither is it the purpose nor effect of this chapter to condone or legitimize the distribution of obscene material.
(b)
Findings and rationale. Based on evidence of the adverse secondary effects of adult uses presented in hearings and in reports made available to the board of county commissioners, and on findings, interpretations, and narrowing constructions incorporated in numerous cases, including, but not limited to City of Littleton v. Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C. , 541 U.S. 774 (2004); Pap's A.M. v. City of Erie , 529 U.S. 277 (2000); City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. , 535 U.S. 425 (2002); City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. , 475 U.S. 41 (1986); Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. , 427 U.S. 50 (1976); Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. , 501 U.S. 560 (1991); FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas , 493 U.S. 215 (1990); California v. LaRue , 409 U.S. 109 (1972); as well as in the cases of Artistic Entertainment, Inc. v. City of Warner Robins , 223 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2000); Peek-A-Boo Lounge of Bradenton, Inc. v. Manatee County , 337 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2003); Gary v. City of Warner Robins , 311 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2002); Ben's Bar, Inc. v. Village of Somerset , 316 F.3d 702 (7 th Cir. 2003); Wise Enters. v. Unified Gov't of Athens-Clarke County , 217 F.3d 1360 (11 th Cir. 2000); BZAPs, Inc. v. City of Mankato , 268 F.3d 603 (8 th Cir. 2001); World Wide Video of Washington, Inc. v. City of Spokane , 368 F.3d 1186 (9 th Cir. 2004); Gammoh v. City of La Habra , 395 F.3d 1114 (9 th Cir. 2005); Ward v. County of Orange , 217 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2000); Boss Capital, Inc. v. City of Casselberry , 187 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 1999); David Vincent, Inc. v. Broward County , 200 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2000); Sammy's of Mobile, Ltd. v. City of Mobile , 140 F.3d 993 (11th Cir. 1998); Lady J. Lingerie, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville , 176 F.3d 1358 (11th Cir. 1999); Lady J. Lingerie, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville , 973 F.Supp. 1428 (M.D. Fla. 1997); Grand Faloon Tavern, Inc. v. Wicker , 670 F.2d 943 (11th Cir. 1982); Board of County Commissioners v. Dexterhouse , 348 So. 2d 916 (Ct. App. Fla. 1977); International Food & Beverage Systems v. Ft. Lauderdale , 794 F.2d 1520 (11th Cir. 1986); and other cases; and on reports of secondary effects occurring in and around sexually oriented businesses, including, but not limited to, Phoenix, Arizona - 1979; Minneapolis, Minnesota - 1980; Houston, Texas - 1997; Indianapolis, Indiana - 1984; Amarillo, Texas - 1977; Garden Grove, California - 1991; Los Angeles, California - 1977; Whittier, California - 1978; Austin, Texas - 1986; Seattle, Washington - 1989; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma - 1986; Dallas, Texas - 1997; Newport News, Virginia - 1996; New York Times Square study - 1994; Phoenix, Arizona - 1995—98; Centralia, Washington - 2004; Greensboro, North Carolina - 2003; and also on findings of physical abuse from the papers entitled "Stripclubs According to Strippers: Exposing Workplace Sexual Violence," by Kelly Holsopple, Program Director, Freedom and Justice Center for Prostitution Resources, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Expert Report of Richard McCleary, Ph.D., Dec. 18, 2004; Affidavits of Tom McCarren; "Sexually Oriented Businesses: An Insider's View," by David Sherman, presented to the Michigan House Committee on Ethics and Constitutional Law, Jan. 12, 2000; and the Report of the Attorney General's Working Group On The Regulation Of Sexually Oriented Businesses, (June 6, 1989, State of Minnesota), the board of county commissioners finds:
(1)
Sexually oriented businesses, as a category of commercial uses, are associated with a wide variety of adverse secondary effects including, but not limited to, personal and property crimes, public safety risks, prostitution, potential spread of disease, lewdness, public indecency, illicit sexual activity, illicit drug use and drug trafficking, undesirable and criminal behavior associated with alcohol consumption, negative impacts on surrounding properties, litter, and sexual assault and exploitation.
(2)
Each of the foregoing negative secondary effects constitutes a harm which the county has a substantial government interest in preventing and/or abating in the future. This substantial government interest in preventing secondary effects, which is the county's rationale for this chapter, exists independent of any comparative analysis between sexually oriented and nonsexually oriented businesses. Additionally, the county's interest in regulating sexually oriented businesses extends to future secondary effects that could occur in the county related to current sexually oriented businesses as well as sexually oriented businesses that may locate in the county in the future. The county finds that the cases and secondary effects documentation relied on in this chapter are reasonably believed to be relevant to said secondary effects.
(Ord. No. 05-21, 4-19-05)