My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-18-1999 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1999
>
10-18-1999 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/5/2023 11:15:11 AM
Creation date
4/5/2023 11:08:31 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
380
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
allows for reasonable avenues of communication," Rehnquist wrote for the Court Id. at <br />50.106 S.Ct at 930. <br />The Supreme Court found that Renton ’s "interest in preserving the quality of urban <br />life" is a "vital" governmental interest The substantiality of that interest was in no way <br />diminished by the fact that Renton "relied heavily" on studies of the secondary effects <br />of adult entertainment establishments by Seattle and the experiences of other cities. <br />Rehnquist added. Id. at 51,106 S.Ct at 930^1. <br />The First Amendment does not require a city, before enacting such an <br />ordinance, to conduct new studies or produce evidence independent of that <br />already generated by other cities, so long as whatever evidence the city relies <br />upon is reasonably believed to be relevant to the problem that the city <br />addresses. That was the case here. Nor is our holding affected by the fact <br />that Seattle ultimately chose a different method of aduit theater zoning than <br />that chosen by Renton, since Seattle ’s choice of a different reme^;to <br />combat the secondary effects of adult theaters does not call into question <br />either Seattle's identification of those secondary effects or the relevance of <br />Seattle ’s experience to Renton. <br />.*• <br />• . % <br />Id. at 51*52,106 S.Ct at 931. <br />• <br />Rehnquisfs inquiry then addressed the means chosen to further Renton's <br />substantial interest and inquired into whether the Renton ordinance was suffidently <br />"narrowly tailored." <br />•• <br />His comments on Renton's means to* further its substantial interest suggest M <br />munfcipalities have a wide latitude In enacting content-neutral ordinances aimed at the <br />secondary effects of adult-entertainment establishments. He quoted the Young ~ <br />plurality for the proposition that <br />•' <br />It is not our function to appraise the wisdom of [the city's] decision to require <br />adult theaters to be separated rather than concentrated in the same <br />areas. . . . [T]he city must be allowed a reasonable opportunity to <br />experiment with solutions to admittedly serious problems. <br />|d. at 52,106 S.Ct at 931 (quoting Young, supra. 427 U.S. at 71,96 S.Ct at 2453).'-.•nr <br />-34-
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.