10-18-1999 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ILQ Inveatmcnts. Inc, v. City of Rochester. 25 F.3d 1413 (8th Cir. 1994), cert, denied. 63 U.S.LW. 3413 (Nov. 28, 1994). FACTS: ISSUE: HOLDING: The owner of an adult bookstore sued the City of Rochester under a federal civil rights statute for declaratory and injunctive relief. After ILQ opened a bookstore and segregated forty percent (40%) of its floor space into an adults-only area selling sexually explicit books, magazines, and novelty items, the City notified ILQ that the store constituted an "adult bookstore" and an "adult establishment," which violated the City's zoning ordinance because it was located within 750 feet of a "youth facility." ILQ sued to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance on the grounds it violated ILQ's First Amendment and due process rights. The district court granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the ordinance on grounds ILQ was likely to succeed on the merits of a constitutional challenge to the ordinance because the definition of "adult bookstore" was vague and because the City unreasonably relied on other cities' studies to justify the ordinance and its application to the bookstore. Is ILQ likely to succeed on the merits of its constitutional challenge to the Rochester zoning ordinance? ILQ is unlikely to prevail on the merits of its First Amendment and due process claim; the preliminary injunction should not have been granted. RATIONALE: The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit first found that the adult use ordinance was content-neutral because, in adopting the ordinance, the City had targeted the anticipated impact of adult businesses on their surrounding communities rather that the content of the bookstore's merchandise. The court then examined the legislative history of the ordinance and found that it was designed to serve the substantial governmental interest of curbing unwanted secondary effects of adult businesses. The Eighth Circuit specifically rejected the district court's conclusion that the City was unreasonable in relying on other cities' studies because it did not specifically consider businesses similar to the bookstore in question, i.e., adult bookstores that offer both sexually explicit and non-sexually explicit materials and that allow only off- premises consumption of those materials. Rather, said the court, the studies Identified and measured adverse secondary effects linked to adult businesses generally (e.g., higher crime, neighborhood deterioration, lower property values, and an increase in transients), as well as adverse effects specifically attributable to adult bookstores, A-1