§ 12.5-141. Purpose; findings and rationale.

(a)

Purpose. It is the purpose of this article to regulate adult entertainment establishments 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 adult entertainment establishments 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 article 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 article 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 county council, and on findings, interpretations, and narrowing constructions incorporated in the cases of City of Littleton v. Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C. , 541 U.S. 774 (2004); City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. , 535 U.S. 425 (2002); City of Erie v. Pap's A.M. , 529 U.S. 277 (2000); City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. , 475 U.S. 41 (1986); Young v. American Mini Theatres , 427 U.S. 50 (1976); Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. , 501 U.S. 560 (1991); California v. LaRue , 409 U.S. 109 (1972); N.Y. State Liquor Authority v. Bellanca , 452 U.S. 714 (1981); Sewell v. Georgia , 435 U.S. 982 (1978); FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas , 493 U.S. 215 (1990); City of Dallas v. Stanglin , 490 U.S. 19 (1989); and

Imaginary Images, Inc. v. Evans , 612 F.3d 736 (4th Cir. 2010); D.G. Restaurant, Inc. v. City of Myrtle Beach , 953 F.2d 140 (4th Cir. 1991); Giovani Carandola, Ltd. v. Fox , 470 F.3d 1074 (4th Cir. 2006); Independence News, Inc. v. City of Charlotte , 568 F.3d 148 (4th Cir. 2009); Steakhouse, Inc. v. City of Raleigh , 166 F.3d 634 (4th Cir. 1999); Hart Bookstores, Inc. v. Edmisten , 612 F.2d 821 (4th Cir. 1979); Wall Distributors, Inc. v. City of Newport News , 782 F.2d 1165 (4th Cir. 1986); Restaurant Row Associates v. Horry County , 516 S.E.2d 442 (1999); Condor, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals , 493 S.E.2d 342 (1997); Rothschild v. Richland County Bd of Adjustment , 420 S.E.2d 853 (1992); Centaur, Inc. v. Richland County , 392 S.E.2d 165 (1990); and

LLEH, Inc. v. Wichita County , 289 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 2002); Ocello v. Koster , 354 S.W.3d 187 (Mo. 2011); 84 Video/Newsstand, Inc. v. Sartini , 2011 WL 3904097 (6th Cir. Sept. 7, 2011); Plaza Group Properties, LLC v. Spencer County Plan Commission , 877 N.E.2d 877 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007); Flanigan's Enters., Inc. v. Fulton County , 596 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2010); East Brooks Books, Inc. v. Shelby County , 588 F.3d 360 (6th Cir. 2009); Entm't Prods., Inc. v. Shelby County , 588 F.3d 372 (6th Cir. 2009); Sensations, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids , 526 F.3d 291 (6th Cir. 2008); World Wide Video of Washington, Inc. v. City of Spokane , 368 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2004); Ben's Bar, Inc. v. Village of Somerset , 316 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2003); Peek-a-Boo Lounge v. Manatee County , 630 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2011); Daytona Grand, Inc. v. City of Daytona Beach , 490 F.3d 860 (11th Cir. 2007); Heideman v. South Salt Lake City , 348 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2003); Williams v. Morgan , 478 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2007); Jacksonville Property Rights Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville , 635 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2011); H&A Land Corp. v. City of Kennedale , 480 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2007); Hang On, Inc. v. City of Arlington , 65 F.3d 1248 (5th Cir. 1995); Fantasy Ranch, Inc. v. City of Arlington , 459 F.3d 546 (5th Cir. 2006); Illinois One News, Inc. v. City of Marshall , 477 F.3d 461 (7th Cir. 2007); G.M. Enterprises, Inc. v. Town of St. Joseph , 350 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2003); Richland Bookmart, Inc. v. Knox County , 555 F.3d 512 (6th Cir. 2009); Bigg Wolf Discount Video Movie Sales, Inc. v. Montgomery County , 256 F. Supp. 2d 385 (D. Md. 2003); Richland Bookmart, Inc. v. Nichols , 137 F.3d 435 (6th Cir. 1998); Spokane Arcade, Inc. v. City of Spokane , 75 F.3d 663 (9th Cir. 1996); DCR, Inc. v. Pierce County , 964 P.2d 380 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998); City of New York v. Hommes , 724 N.E.2d 368 (N.Y. 1999); Taylor v. State , No. 01-01-00505-CR, 2002 WL 1722154 (Tex. App. July 25, 2002); Fantasyland Video, Inc. v. County of San Diego , 505 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2007); Gammoh v. City of La Habra , 395 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2005); Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C. v. City of Littleton , Civil Action No. 99-N-1696, Memorandum Decision and Order (D. Colo. March 31, 2001); People ex rel. Deters v. The Lion's Den, Inc. , Case No. 04-CH-26, Modified Permanent Injunction Order (Ill. Fourth Judicial Circuit, Effingham County, July 13, 2005); Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. City of Kennedale , No. 4:05-CV-166-A, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (N.D. Tex. May 26, 2005);

and based upon reports concerning secondary effects occurring in and around adult entertainment establishments, including, but not limited to, "Correlates of Current Transactional Sex among a Sample of Female Exotic Dancers in Baltimore, MD," Journal of Urban Health (2011); "Does the Presence of Sexually-oriented Businesses Relate to Increased Levels of Crime?" Crime & Delinquency (2012) (Louisville, KY); Metropolis, Illinois—2011-12; Manatee County, Florida—2007; Hillsborough County, Florida—2006; Clarksville, Indiana—2009; El Paso, Texas—2008; Memphis, Tennessee—2006; New Albany, Indiana—2009; Louisville, Kentucky—2004; Fulton County, GA—2001; Chattanooga, Tennessee—1999-2003; Jackson County, Missouri—2008; Ft. Worth, Texas—2004; Kennedale, Texas—2005; Greensboro, North Carolina—2003; Dallas, Texas—1997; Houston, Texas—1997, 1983; Phoenix, Arizona—1995-98, 1979; Tucson, Arizona—1990; Spokane, Washington—2001; St. Cloud, Minnesota—1994; Austin, Texas—1986; Indianapolis, Indiana—1984; Garden Grove, California—1991; Los Angeles, California—1977; Whittier, California—1978; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma—1986; New York, New York Times Square—1994; the Report of the Attorney General's Working Group On The Regulation Of Sexually-oriented Businesses, (June 6, 1989, State of Minnesota); Dallas, Texas—2007; "Rural Hotspots: The Case of Adult Businesses," 19 Criminal Justice Policy Review 153 (2008); "Stripclubs According to Strippers: Exposing Workplace Sexual Violence," by Kelly Holsopple, Program Director, Freedom and Justice Center for Prostitution Resources, Minneapolis, Minnesota; "Sexually-oriented Businesses: An Insider's View," by David Sherman, presented to the Michigan House Committee on Ethics and Constitutional Law, Jan. 12, 2000; Sex Store Statistics and Articles; and Law Enforcement and Investigator Affidavits (Forest Park, GA; Sandy Springs, GA; and Horry County, SC),

the county council finds:

(1)

Adult entertainment establishments, 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, obscenity, illicit drug use and drug trafficking, negative impacts on surrounding properties, urban blight, litter, and sexual assault and exploitation.

(2)

Adult entertainment establishments should be separated from sensitive land uses to minimize the impact of their secondary effects upon such uses, and should be separated from other adult entertainment establishments, to minimize the secondary effects associated with such uses and to prevent an unnecessary concentration of adult entertainment establishments in one (1) 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 article, exists independent of any comparative analysis between sexually-oriented and non-sexually-oriented businesses. Additionally, the county's interest in regulating adult entertainment establishments extends to preventing future secondary effects of either current or future adult entertainment establishments 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.

The county hereby adopts and incorporates herein its stated findings and legislative record related to the adverse secondary effects of adult entertainment establishments, including the judicial opinions and reports related to such secondary effects.

(Ord. No. 29-13, § 2, 9-3-13)