Orlando City Code § 37.01 Purpose and findings.
Sec. 37.01. - Purpose and findings.
(a) Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter and other related parts of the Orlando City Code to regulate adult entertainment facilities in order to promote and protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City, and to establish reasonable, uniform, and fair regulations to prevent the deleterious secondary effects of adult entertainment facilities within the City. The provisions of this chapter and other related parts of the Orlando City Code have neither the purpose nor effect of imposing a limitation or restriction on the content or reasonable access to any communicative materials, including adult materials. It is neither the purpose nor effect of this chapter and other related parts of the Orlando City Code to restrict or deny access by consenting adults to adult material protected by the United States or Florida constitutions, or to deny access by the distributors and exhibitors of adult material to their intended and lawful market, but neither is the purpose nor effect of this chapter and other related parts of the Orlando City Code to condone or legitimize the distribution or exhibition of obscene material.
(b) Findings and rationale. Based on evidence of the adverse secondary effects of adult entertainment facilities presented in reports and studies presented to each of the commissioners of the Orlando City Council, and on findings, interpretations, and narrowing constructions incorporated in numerous court cases, including without limitation, City of Littleton v. Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C., 541 U.S. 774 (2004), Pap's A.M. v. City of Erie, 529 U.S. 277 (2000), City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425 (2002), City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986), Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50 (1976), Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991), FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990), California v. LaRue, 409 U.S. 109 (1972), Artistic Entertainment, Inc. v. City of Warner Robins, 223 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2000), Peek-A-Boo Lounge of Bradenton, Inc. v. Manatee County, 337 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2003), Gary v. City of Warner Robins, 311 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2002), Ben's Bar, Inc. v. Village of Somerset, 316 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2003), Wise Enters v. Unified Gov't of Athens-Clarke County, 217 F.3d 1360 (11th Cir. 2000), BZAPs, Inc. v. City of Mankato, 268 F.3d 603 (8th Cir. 2001), World Wide Web of Washington, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 368 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2004), Gammoh v. City of La Habra, 395 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2005), Ward v. County of Orange, 217 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2000), Boss Capital, Inc. v. City of Casselberry, 187 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 1999), David Vincent, Inc. v. Broward County, 200 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2000), Sammy's of Mobile, Ltd. v. City of Mobile, 140 F.3d 993 (11th Cir. 1998), Lady J. Lingerie, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 176 F.3d 1358 (11th Cir. 1999), Grand Faloon Tavern, Inc. v. Wicker, 670 F.2d 943 (11th Cir. 1982), Board of County Commissioners v. Dexterhouse, 348 So.2d 916 (2nd Ct. App. Fla. 1977), International Food & Beverage Systems v. Ft. Lauderdale, 794 F.2d 1520 (11th Cir. 1986), and other court cases, and on reports and studies of secondary effects occurring in and around adult entertainment facilities, including without limitation, Phoenix, Arizona - 1979, 1995-1998, Houston, Texas - 1983, 1997, Indianapolis, Indiana - 1984, Amarillo, Texas - 1977, Garden Grove, California - 1991, Los Angeles, California - 1977, Whittier, California - 1978, Austin, Texas - 1986, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma - 1986, Dallas, Texas - 1997, 2004, Newport News, Virginia - 1996, New York Times Square Study - 1994, Centralia, Washington - 2004, Greensboro, North Carolina - 2003, and also on findings of physical abuse from the papers entitled "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, January 12, 2000, and the Report of the Attorney General's Working Group on the Regulation of Sexually Oriented Business, June 6, 1989, State of Minnesota, the Orlando City Council hereby finds:
(1) Adult entertainment facilities, as a category of commercial use, are associated with a wide variety of adverse secondary effects, including without limitation, personal and property crimes, public safety risks, prostitution, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, lewdness, public indecency, illicit sexual activity, illicit drug use and drug trafficking, undesirable and criminal behavior associated with alcohol consumption, the diminution of surrounding property values, litter, blight, and sexual assault and exploitation.
(2) Each of the foregoing negative secondary effects constitutes a harm that the City has a substantial governmental interest in preventing or abating. This substantial governmental interest in preventing secondary effects, which is the City's rationale for this chapter and related parts of the Orlando City Code, exists independent of any comparative analysis between adult oriented and non-adult oriented businesses. The City's interest in regulating adult entertainment facilities extends to future secondary effects that may occur in the City related to existing adult entertainment facilities as well as facilities that may locate in the City in the future. The City hereby finds that the cases, reports, and studies relied on this chapter are reasonably believed to be relevant to the City.
(Ord. of 10-5-2009, § 1, Doc. #0910051105)