Opinion ID: 1268047
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: locational provisions

Text: Centaur claims the Ordinance's locational provisions are not valid time, place, and manner regulations in that they do not provide reasonable alternative avenues of communication. In Renton, supra , the Supreme Court specifically addressed this requirement: That respondents must fend for themselves in the real estate market, on an equal footing with other prospective purchasers and lessees, does not give rise to a First Amendment violation. And although we have cautioned against the enactment of zoning regulations that have the effect of suppressing, or greatly restricting access to, lawful speech, we have never suggested that the First Amendment compels the Government to ensure that adult theatres, or any other kinds of speech-related businesses for that matter, will be able to obtain sites at bargain prices. In our view, the First Amendment requires only that Renton refrain from effectively denying respondents a reasonable opportunity to open and operate an adult theater within the city.... 475 U.S. at 54, 106 S.Ct. at 932, 89 L.Ed. (2d) at 42 (citations omitted). Centaur concedes that, as found by the Circuit Court, there are at least sixteen sites on which its businesses could be relocated. Centaur presented no evidence that it was effectively denied a reasonable opportunity to continue the operation of its bookstores at other locations. We, therefore, sustain the constitutionality of the Ordinance's locational provisions as applied to Centaur.