Laserfiche WebLink
IHolmbero v. City of Ramsev. 12 F.3d 140 (8th Cir. 1993), cert, denied. 63 U.S.L.W. <br />3220 (Oct. 3, 1994). <br />FACTS:Owner of adults-oniy store selling sexually explicit reading materials <br />and sexual novelties, with on-premises coin-operated adult video <br />machines, challenged the constitutionality of the City of Ramsey's adult <br />use zoning ordinance, which required him to relocate his business. The <br />City adopted an adult use ordinance based on the unwanted secondary <br />effects of adult businesses, which designated two commercial zones <br />where adult businesses could operate, as long as they were located at <br />least 1,000 feet from certain other protected uses. Holmberg's <br />business was located within one of the new zones but was located <br />within 1,000 feet of several protected uses. Accordingly, Holmberg <br />was required to relocate his business within a grace period. <br />ISSUE:Is the City of Ramsey's adult use ordinance constitutional? <br />HOLDING: The City's adult use ordinance is constitutional. <br />RATIONALE: The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the City's zoning <br />ordinance was content-neutral, since nothing in the ordinance <br />suggested that the City had adopted it to suppress the message of <br />Holmberg's sexual materials. Next, the court found that the City <br />adopted the ordinance based on studies in other cities showing that <br />sexually-oriented businesses have an adverse impact on surrounding <br />neighborhoods, which satisfied the requirement that the ordinance <br />serve a substantial governmental interest because the City reasonably <br />believed that such studies were relevant to its own problems. <br />' I <br />Finally, the court found that the ordinance did not unreasonably limit <br />alternative avenues of communication for Holmberg and his materials, <br />because the ordinance allowed adult businesses access to thirty-five <br />percent (35%) of the City's commercially-zoned land, both developed <br />and undeveloped, much of which was located along major streets <br />Intersecting the central highway and within sight of the highway. The <br />court found no First Amendment violation, "merely because Holmberg <br />must 'fend for (himself)' in the real estate market on an equal footing <br />with other prospective purchasers and lessees." <br />A-5