HomeMy WebLinkAboutA002 - Letter to City Council dated April 4, 1986 from City Attorney providing additional information iMEi
Ciff Y OF AMES IOWA 50010
515/232-6210
ALL-AMERICA CITY
1982-1983
April 4 , 1986
Honorable F . Paul Goodland, Mayor APR 7 5
and Members of the City Council
of the City of Ames , Iowa � clryc�eR;,
Of AMES, I&VA
In re: Adult Business Regulation
Dear Mayor Goodland and Council Members :
There have been occasional inquiries as to what regulations
the city might validly enact with respect to so-called "adult"
movie arcades and book stores .
Enclosed is a summary of an ordinance recently upheld by the
U. S . Supreme Court. It does not allow a ban , but it does
uphold a siting restriction which could be helpful to some
of the concerns that have been expressed to you. The existing
businesses at their existing location would not be affected.
However, such an ordinance would effect any relocatirn, or any
new business of that kind.
Since this is a " zoning" measure , the procedure would be to
direct preparation of the ordinance, and referral to the
Planning and Zoning Commission for recommednation .
Respectfully submitted,
John R. Klaus
City Attorney
JRK/bh
Encl .
. r rl,. � i' "?f.l '4�I.s;1'Irl�t��)ff4•if�'•Jl.�' , rr r':;f/t.kl� � G,�!r:'•�l��i�(rC�I(i!?irr�.�.11i[r2��,'�('•
r7 .1 I, } , •�:r7.'.. .talk{ l'1'!:it .lk2'tl
.Jxftll• ')J1(fat1I77U.,.nfi 9['f1A�9ff`
•••••••n" irllt F..t`W ClTllRtl!f?I:f'ati ,`i: tl1�)0.!1,6 cFI1CF C " jFk 11�3 S�ft4.
11'CITY. 'et' 'al.'
1 Appellaiits
OF RENTON )it' "I;1l+ r:t<m �fidt4 !a
1(1,t!1n1'�'tJ�11J.,•;
(r! 1'a'`-,`�l,j� J 1',?1` V !)Ii''- 6itllE <1
'(ist;oqW f'ril� o�rae;rq `
PLAYTIME THEATRES, INC., et
t i ' h ,>it:-�•',...r, .:.t ''i)it)1fr)i !q[4r� ';:iY 1 � ty /It11J�
US,—, 89 L,Ed 2d 29, 106 S qt
1,�[
r, , ''J et •r,•1.�1"(,t1 .�r„ i (. c;. o (w11Ir^ r ,
r l,. >11' ! t' •' C�!`.?,,�(f.;':� tf l;(; t JA,rgJ(4 III'
" t1rr 4[No.;84-1360] ,i3f(E 1:esi.?trlk ri,x;tsi3iili.tL
,b�:, 1, +.`. r I. .�: li•11 !C1'rrl •., I:._ ri=lyf'l.�.It1!-'?�Q7F(F't1'c*:`+1: li.�alw.{�r(l� t.t'%
Argued November 12, 1985. Decided February25,,1986
`... Clr,,,i {
Decision: Zoningordinance . a
prohibiting adult movie-theaters'froin locating
within 1,000 feet of residential property, church, park, or'school held not)"3 ;
to violate First Amendment w14i.
• ! i , 1,c, a��t, � { �. , � 9. ,'`'i!'t"([Y�3S��lfrtll �jrtp�:=,' �p ,"'- }
.... 1 ? :,i4(1([�, 1.lt.�'c:.t$UMMARY�, !. •I`'31.f..1T..[,i`!e =t.t.�r{I( `?i. .._- IPS!E) r.. '
Two theater owners who intended Ito' exhibit adult motion"pictures in-
their
their theaters brought. suit in the' United States District'-Court for( the i
Western District of Washington,'seeking declaratory,and,,injunctive relief
against a city zoning'ordinance',which, prohibited adult'.motion,picture'
theaters from locating Within,1,000"feet'of any residential,.zone, single-' orr'
multiple-family dwelling, church,t park, or school: Rejecting the, theater.`..';'
owners' claims that the ordinance violated the First'and Fourteenth Amend--
ments, the District Court entered.summary judgment in 1 favor''of the city.""
+ The United.States-Court of•'Appeals for the 'Ninth Circuit'•reversed land'
remanded the case, holding (1) that the ordinance constituted a'substantial
I restriction on, speech, (2) that .the city had failed to make a':sufficient' '
showing of a substantial governmental interest in support pf•the ordinance;'`
t and (3) that the city's asserted interests had not been shown:to be unrelated i
to the suppression of speech(748 F2d 527). f�(. 1 A`� i " t 11111d I
j On certiorari, the UnitedStates.Supreme Court reversed. In an opinion
b REHNQUIST, J. `
y , joined by BURGER, Ch. J., arid,WHITE,. POWELL, STEVENS, '
and "O'CONNOR, JJ., 'the court,'concluding 'that the' ordinance was not
unconstitutional, held that the ordinance (1) was a`"content-neutral" speech*
regulation, (2) was designed to serve a,substantial governmental'interest,
and (3) allowed for reasonable alternative avenues'of'communication; that
the city was entitled to rely on the experience Of.other'cities'in enacting a'
zoning ordinance-for adult motion picture theaters;l'that'there?was no,
constitutional defect,in the method chosen by the:city,to.further its substan" 1
tial interests; that the ordinance was not"unconstitutionally underinclusive
for failing to regulate businesses,other-than adult motion picture theaters; ,
and that the ordinance represented a valid governmental response, ..,•the,:," 'a ,
i 1,•.,
serious problems created b adult motion icture theaters.
� .., .'. . y P
BRENNAN, J., joined by MARSHALL, J.,` dissented on 'the'grounds''that.
' because the ordinance imposed' special 'restrictions on certain :kinds''of F
speech on the basis of content, the ordinance was not "content-neutral," and
that even if the ordinance could:•fairly!-be;characterized as' "content-neu-
tral," the city failed to make a sufficient showing,of a substantial'govern-
,'mental interest in support of the ordinance, and the ordinance}did :not i
Ll ,
provide for reasonable alternative avenues of,communication.