Laserfiche WebLink
As to the “narrowly tailored" requirement, Rehnquist found that the Renton <br />ordinance only affected theaters producing unwanted secondary effects and. therefore, <br />was satisfactory. Id. <br />The second prong of Renton ’s “time, place, manner" inquiry - the availability of <br />alternative avenues of communication - was satisfied by the dlstrict court’s finding that <br />520 acres of. land, or more than five percent of Renton, were left available for adult- <br />entertainment uses, even though some of that developed area was already occupied <br />and the undeveloped land was not available for sale or lease. A majority of the Court <br />found: <br />That [adult theater owners] must fend for themselves in the real estate <br />market, on an equal footing with other prospective purchasers and lessees, <br />does not give rise to a First Amendment violation.... In our view, the First <br />Amendment requires only that Renton refrain from effectively denying [adult <br />theater o^ers] a reasonable opportunity to open and operate an adult <br />theater within the city, and the ordinance before us easily meets this <br />requirement <br />jd.at54,106S.Ctat932. <br />Standards and Weed for Legal Zoning <br />Unlike ’Ybyng, the Renton case spells out the standards by which zoning of <br />sexually oriented businesses should be tested. Renton and several lower court <br />decisions rendered In its wake suggest that the two most critical areas by which the <br />ordinances will be judged are 1) whether there is evidence that ordinances were <br />enacted to address secondary impacts on the community, and 2) whether there are <br />enough locations still available for sexually oriented businesses so that zoning is not <br />Just a pretext to eliminate pornographic speech.i^ <br />10/ ^ 11 recent post-Renton adult-entertainment zoning decisions by federal courts, <br />five inv^idated oroinances, three upheld ordinances and three ordered a remand <br />to district court for further proceedinas. Zoning ordinances were struck in Avalon <br />Cinema Corp, v. Thompson . 667 F.2d 659 (8th Cir. 1987)( city council failed to offer <br />(Footnote 10 (Continued on Next Page) <br />-35-