§ 50-26. Rationale and findings.

(a)

Purpose. It is the purpose of this article to regulate sexually oriented businesses in order to promote the health, safety, moral, 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 article 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 intent nor effect of this ordinance 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 intent nor effect of this ordinance to condone or legitimize the distribution of obscene material. This ordinance shall apply only in the unincorporated areas of the county.

(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 commission, and on findings, interpretations, and narrowing constructions incorporated in the cases of City of Littleton v. Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C., 124 S.Ct. 2219 (June 7, 2004); City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425 (2002); Pap's A.M. v. City of Erie, 529 U.S. 277 (2000); City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986), Young v. American Mini Theatres, 426 U.S. 50 (1976), Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991); California v. LaRue, 409 U.S. 109 (1972); and

DLS, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, 107 F.3d 403 (6 ^th Cir. 1997); Brandywine, Inc. v. City of Richmond, 359 F.3d 830 (6 ^th Cir. 2004); Currence v. City of Cincinnati, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 1258; Broadway Books v. Roberts, 642 F.Supp. 486 (E.D. Tenn. 1986); Bright Lights, Inc. v. City of Newport, 830 F.Supp. 378 (E.D. Ky. 1993); Richland Bookmart v. Nichols, 137 F.3d 435 (6 ^th Cir. 1998); Richland Bookmart, Inc. v. Nichols, 278 F.3d 570 (6 ^th Cir. 2002); Center for Fair Public Policy v. Maricopa County, 336 F.3d 1153 (9 ^th Cir. 2003); Deja vu v. Metro Government, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 535 (6 ^th Cir. 1999); Bamon Corp. v. City of Dayton, 7923 F.2d 470 (6 ^th Cir. 1991); Triplett Grille, Inc. v. City of Akron, 40 F.3d 129 (6 ^th Cir. 1994); O'Connor v. City and County of Denver, 894 F.2d 1210 (10 ^th Cir. 1990); Deja vu of Nashville, Inc., et al. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, 274 F.3d 377 (6 ^th Cir. 2001); Z.J. Gifts D-2, L.L.C. v. City of Aurora, 136 F.3d 683 (10 ^th Cir. 1998); ILQ Investments, Inc. v. City of Rochester, 25 F.3d 1413 (8 ^th Cir. 1994); Threesome Entertainment v. Strittmather, 4 F.Supp.2d 710 (N.D. Ohio 1998); Bigg Wolf Discount Video Sales, Inc. v. Montgomery County, 256 F. Supp. 2d 385 (D. Md. 2003); Kentucky Restaurant Concepts, Inc. v. City of Louisville and Jefferson County, 209 F.Supp.2d 672 (W.D. Ky. 2002); Restaurant Ventures v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't, 60 S.W.3d 572 (Ct. App. Ky. 2001); World Wide Video of Washington, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 368 F.3d 1186 (9 ^th Cir. 2004); Ben's Bar, Inc. v. Village of Somerset, 316 F.3d 702 (7 ^th Cir. 2003);

and based upon reports concerning secondary effects occurring in and around sexually oriented businesses, including, but not limited to, Austin, Texas - 1986; Indianapolis, Indiana - 1984; Garden Grove, California - 1991; Houston, Texas - 1983, 1997; Phoenix, Arizona - 1979, 1995-98; Chattanooga, Tennessee - 1999-2003; Minneapolis, Minnesota - 1980; Los Angeles, California - 1977; Whittier, California - 1978; Spokane, Washington - 2001; St. Cloud, Minnesota - 1994; Littleton, Colorado - 2004; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma - 1986; Dallas, Texas - 1997; Greensboro, North Carolina - 2003; Amarillo, Texas - 1977; New York, New York Times Square - 1994; and the Report of the Attorney General's Working Group On The Regulation Of Sexually Oriented Businesses, (June 6, 1989, State of Minnesota), the commission 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, prostitution, potential spread of disease, lewdness, public indecency, illicit drug use and drug trafficking, negative impacts on property values, urban blight, litter, and sexual assault and exploitation.

(2)

Sexually oriented businesses should be separated from sensitive land uses to minimize the impact of their secondary effects upon such uses, and should be separated from other sexually oriented businesses, to minimize the secondary effects associated with such uses and to prevent an unnecessary concentration of sexually oriented businesses in one area.

(3)

Each of the foregoing negative secondary effects constitutes a harm which the county has a substantial government interest in preventing and/or abating. This substantial government interest in preventing secondary effects, which is the county's rationale for this ordinance, exists independent of any comparative analysis between sexually oriented and non-sexually oriented businesses. Additionally, the county's interest in regulating sexually oriented businesses extends to preventing future secondary effects of either current or future sexually oriented businesses that may locate in the county. The county finds that the cases and documentation relied on in this article are reasonably believed to be relevant to said secondary effects.

(Ord. No. O-05-2-102, § 1, 3-28-05)