Some people question the reality of secondary effects of adult businesses. NoPornNorthampton would like to present a summary of some of our research into this issue. Secondary effects have been seen in towns as large as New York City and as small as Kittery, Maine. These effects have been seen in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and in Kittery’s case, 2006. The fact that secondary effects are seen in a wide range and variety of locales, over a long span of time, speaks to their reality.
In any complex social science such as the study of American cities, 100% certainty about cause and effect is impossible to achieve. There will always be some outliers and contradictory data. For adult-use zoning, we believe the appropriate standard is not 100% certainty but a preponderance of the evidence. We are confident that we have met this standard, and that American courts support our position.
Springfield Tightened Adult-Use Regulations in 1993 in Response to Citizen Concerns
New York City Planners Document Secondary Effects of Adult Uses, Support Zoning
Giuliani Understood How “Small Things” Matter
New York City Porn Shops Depress Demand for Neighboring Properties
Even Hollywood Moved to Crack Down on Its Adult Businesses
Why Hollywood Reached for Zoning: Crime, Business Failure, Tourists Fleeing
Local Businesses Say Porn Shop Hurts Downtown Ypsilanti
Impact of Porn Shops on a Community
Des Moines: Adult Uses Cause Business Failures, Scare People Away
Both Congressman Barney Frank and State Senator Stanley Rosenberg are comfortable with using zoning to mitigate secondary effects. These politicians respect First Amendment rights, while understanding that some modest regulation is warranted to meet citizens’ legitimate concerns.
Some Northampton citizens have expressed concern that adult-use zoning will be lead to general and increasing censorship of media. We have seen virtually no evidence of this in locales where adult-use zoning has been employed for any substantial period, such as Boston, New York, or Springfield. If there was substantial evidence of follow-on censorship, our opponents would almost certainly have presented this by now.
All over the country, in many times and places, the people have shown that they can employ adult-use zoning responsibly to mitigate secondary effects without straying into general censorship. We are confident the people of Northampton will be equally wise.
Some people have said that adult-use zoning will invest extraordinary powers in a single person, perhaps the building inspector. However, the building inspector is not the only important player in Northampton. He is answerable to other city officials, the courts, and ultimately to the people. If he abuses his power, we are more than confident that people will be there to correct him.
Absent legislation, companies like Capital Video, as shown by their actions in Springfield and Kittery, by the substantial evidence of secondary effects surrounding adult businesses, and by Anthony Nota’s attitude in council chambers on October 26, cannot be trusted to respect the citizens of Northampton or their concerns.
To deny the residents of Northampton modest protection from proven risks, due to imaginary fears of censorship, would be unfortunate. Adult-use zoning is not Nazism. It is not book burning. It is not religious law. It is limited, well-tested regulation that meets residents’ concerns and no more.
Your arguments are, as always, poor. Show me one article in that list that shows the effects of a single non-theater, non-live adult business? The articles you have posted have to do with (a) the effects of clustering the businesses into a district, (b) the effects of a “live” business (booths, strip club, etc), or (c) problems caused by the PERCEPTION of problems (over-reactive hypermorality on the part of the townspeople where no actual problems exist).
As far as I can tell, your argument based on slippery-slope: once we let one business in, others will follow and there goes the neighborhood. Why is the argument of your opponents, that one unfounded act of censorship will only lead to more, any LESS valid? (..Not that slippery-slope is EVER a valid argument, but I digress that point.)
You are strutting around these weak articles like peacock feathers, to dazzle the town legislature and a weak-minded minority. I can only pray that someone has half a shred of logic in their heads and can out you for what you really are.
You must not be reading our blog very closely. Below is plenty of evidence of the harm of shops with non-live porn. And the issue is not just about a single porn shop. Without the ordinances passed by our city council on Thursday, there was nothing to stop King Street from becoming a ‘sex mile’.
Our arguments about a ‘slippery slope’ from porn shops are valid because they are supported by the evidence (see especially the 1994 New York Adult Entertainment Study). Arguments about censorship stemming from adult-use zoning are not valid because they are not supported by evidence.
Salisbury, MA: Letting One Adult Entertainment Shop Set Up in an Area Makes It Easy for Others to Follow
State Land-Use Planner: “Once the ‘use’ is located in your community, it’s very difficult to get rid of them”
New York City Planners Document Secondary Effects of Adult Uses, Support Zoning
New York City Porn Shops Depress Demand for Neighboring Properties
Not All Happy with Porn Shops in Greenwich Village
Even Hollywood Moved to Crack Down on Its Adult Businesses
Why Hollywood Reached for Zoning: Crime, Business Failure, Tourists Fleeing
Local Businesses Say Porn Shop Hurts Downtown Ypsilanti
Impact of Porn Shops on a Community
Law Article: “Preventing the Secondary Effects of Adult Entertainment Establishments: Is Zoning the Solution?”
The Blaine Experience