Opinion ID: 571319
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Automobile parking lots.

Text: F. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses such as off-street parking and loading areas, signs, storage of merchandise, and wholesaling, when incidental to a permitted use. SUBD. 3. Uses by Special Permit A. Automobile service stations and motor vehicle repair and wash. B. Drive-in establishments. C. Creameries. D. Small animal clinics, excluding establishments with outside runs and non-patient overnight boarding. 2 Although exclusion of churches from the central business district is not explicit in the text of the ordinance, the City has unequivocally interpreted the ordinance to exclude churches from the C-3 zone. The district court places much emphasis on the fact that the zoning ordinance does not explicitly exclude churches from the central business district. 740 F.Supp. 654, 662. We cannot embrace such a distinction. All parties agree that the City enforces its ordinance to exclude churches from the C-3 zone. Thus, it is inconsequential whether that exclusion is explicit or implicit in the ordinance. To hold otherwise would allow governments to evade first amendment scrutiny simply by drafting their laws to restrict speech implicitly rather than explicitly 3 This view of the City's ordinance gains support from the fact that the City has permitted several non-commercial entities to locate in the C-3 zone, including the Masonic Lodge, Alcoholics Anonymous, and Birthright (a pregnancy counseling center). These organizations do not appear to further the City's goal of economic vitality any more than the Church, yet only the Church has been excluded 4 See also L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 12-3, at 795 n. 4 (2d ed. 1988) ( '[W]hat sort of regulation it really is' is irrelevant, as well as unintelligible. The critical inquiry is whether the state chooses to (or must) justify the regulation by reference to dangers that flow from an act's communicative content. (citation omitted)). Practically speaking, it is too difficult to ascertain the City's true purpose if in fact its asserted justification is a pretext. United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 383-84, 88 S.Ct. 1673, 1682-83, 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968) 5 The City concedes that the traffic-related issues are asserted only in passing and are not ... the keystone of the City's position in this matter. City Brief at 26 6 The record indicates that the Church has services on Sunday mornings and evenings, Wednesday evenings, and has bible college on Tuesday evenings. Church App. at 44-45. It is not clear when counseling services and other activities take place. See id. The Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion are open evenings and Sundays. City App. at 129; Church App. at 123 7 See supra note 1. The district court found the City's failure to define the term private clubs irrelevant because it was clear that churches were not subsumed in that definition. 740 F.Supp. 654, 667 (D.Minn.1990) 8 The Court also considered an underinclusiveness argument in Renton, 475 U.S. at 52, 106 S.Ct. at 931. The adult theatre owner argued that the Renton ordinance restricting the location of adult theatres was underinclusive because it did not regulate other types of adult business that would generate the same unwanted secondary effects. Id. The Court rejected the challenge because the theatre could not point to any other adult business in Renton that was treated differently than the adult theatres. Id. at 52-53, 106 S.Ct. at 931-32. In contrast, the Church has identified five non-commercial entities permitted in the C-3 zone 9 For that matter, it is difficult to imagine how a church would displace commercial activity any more than a second-story apartment, which is permitted in the C-3 zone. A church provides services to members and sometimes may engage in merchandising or quasi-commercial activity. It seems unlikely that any comparable activity would be generated from residences. Although allowing residents in the downtown area may generate demand, parishioners on their way to and from church for meetings, activities, counseling or services likely would also patronize the C-3 businesses 10 We do not decide whether the City in fact is compelled under state law to locate liquor establishments in the C-3 zone 11 The City implies that it allows non-commercial entities in the C-3 zone if they are eligible for a liquor license. City Brief at 24. If this is the City's distinction it is unavailing, for the Church too is eligible for a liquor license 12 The City does offer the tautological argument that Birthright and Alcoholics Anonymous are allowed in the C-3 zone because they fall under the category of professional and medical services. City Brief at 25. It is meaningless to argue that a land-use is allowed under the ordinance because the ordinance allows it. For equal protection analysis the relevant inquiry is whether allowing one non-commercial entity but excluding another is rational in light of the purposes of the ordinance. Thus, the issue is whether Birthright and Alcoholics Anonymous generate economic activity more or less than the Church 13 The Church claims the City's rationale for treating churches differently from other non-commercial entities should be subject to strict scrutiny. Although courts typically give broad latitude to legislative initiatives concerning economic regulation, New Orleans v. Duke, 427 U.S. 297, 303, 96 S.Ct. 2513, 2516-17, 49 L.Ed.2d 511 (1976) (per curiam), the Church relies on the statement in Cleburne that a heightened standard of review is required when state laws impinge on personal rights protected by the Constitution. 473 U.S. at 440, 105 S.Ct. at 3254. However, in an analogous circumstance of racial discrimination in which plaintiffs sought strict scrutiny the Court stated that our cases have not embraced the proposition that a law or other official act, without regard to whether it reflects a racially discriminatory purpose, is unconstitutional solely because it has a racially disproportionate impact. Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 2047, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976). Absent evidence of purposeful discrimination based on religious status, the rational basis standard should apply. The disparate impact of the ordinance on the Church is insufficient to support an inference of discriminatory purpose, see Davis, 426 U.S. at 242, 96 S.Ct. at 2049; see also Williams v. Anderson, 562 F.2d 1081, 1087 (8th Cir.1977), particularly in light of the City's efforts to accommodate the Church 14 The cases cited by the Church are relevant factually but all were decided prior to Smith. See Islamic Center of Mississippi, Inc. v. City of Starkville, 840 F.2d 293 (5th Cir.1988); Messiah Baptist Church v. County of Jefferson, 859 F.2d 820 (10th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1005, 109 S.Ct. 1638, 104 L.Ed.2d 154 (1989); Lakewood, Ohio Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. City of Lakewood, 699 F.2d 303 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 815, 104 S.Ct. 72, 78 L.Ed.2d 85 (1983); Grosz v. City of Miami Beach, 721 F.2d 729 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 827, 105 S.Ct. 108, 83 L.Ed.2d 52 (1984). In any event, the courts upheld the zoning ordinances in three of the four cases. In the other case the city had permitted twenty-five Christian churches in an area but prohibited a Muslim mosque. Islamic Center, 840 F.2d at 297. The court accordingly found that the ordinance as enforced was discriminatory against Muslims and violated their free exercise rights. Id. at 302-03. The facts of Islamic Center go well beyond the present case 15 Indeed, the City has attempted to accommodate the Church by indicating its approval of a zoning change for the Church's property on Third Street. The City also has granted the Church a number of extensions of time to find another location 16 This result is consistent with a recent Second Circuit case involving enforcement of an historic preservation ordinance to restrict a church's right to develop its property. Rector, Wardens, & Members of Vestry of St. Bartholomew's Church v. City of New York, 914 F.2d 348 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1103, 113 L.Ed.2d 214 (1991). St. Bartholomew's Church owned a seven-story building in the heart of Manhattan that was designated an historical landmark under a city ordinance. The church wanted to tear down the landmark and build an office tower to further its charitable and ministerial program, but the city refused permission. The church filed suit claiming, inter alia, that the ordinance violated its rights under the free exercise clause The Second Circuit applied Smith and found the landmark ordinance a neutral regulation of general applicability. Id. at 355. Although the ordinance drastically restricted the Church's ability to raise revenues and despite the fact that approximately fifteen percent of all designated landmarks were churches, the court found no evidence of an intent to discriminate against religious worship. Id. at 354-55. The Second Circuit concluded that no First Amendment violation has occurred absent a showing of discriminatory motive, coercion in religious practice or the Church's inability to carry out its religious mission in its existing facilities. Id. at 355. 17 Before the district court the Church also claimed that the city planner's decisions were not subject to meaningful review, but the Church does not press this contention on appeal. Clearly the Church has exercised its ability to appeal the city planner's decisions to the City Council 18 To the extent that the Church claims that the city planner has discriminated against religious expression, that argument is more appropriately considered as part of the Church's equal protection claim. As we observed in remanding the Church's equal protection claim, the City has some way to go in providing a rationale for its distinction between the permitted non-commercial uses and the Church. However, any improper discrimination resulting from the City's enforcement of the ordinance is not due to a vagueness problem in the text of the ordinance. The text is reasonably and concisely drafted and is not vague. The terms church, private club, and economic activity are familiar terms from common experience and are not unduly ambiguous. Thus, if the ordinance is invalidated it will be because of the assumptions the City has made about the specific land-uses at issue, not because of inherent problems in the text of the ordinance 19 Despite a passing reference in its brief to its freedom of association claim, Church Brief at 36 n. 95, the Church has not raised on appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment for the City on its freedom of association claim