Court Opinion

ID: 9544565
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:57:05.968951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:13.925912
License: Public Domain

*991ROVIRA, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The majority opinion, without benefit of any evidence, concludes as a matter of fact that the zoning plan of the City of Federal Heights amounts to an outright ban on all forms of live, nude entertainment. I disagree with this conclusion for the simple reason that I see no evidence to support it. The type of entertainment provided in the Marco Lounge is subject to legitimate local regulation. See Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50, 96 S.Ct. 2440, 49 L.Ed.2d 310 (1976) (zoning may be used either to confine or to disperse “adult” entertainment centers into certain municipal locations); California v. LaRue, 409 U.S. 109, 93 S.Ct. 390, 34 L.Ed.2d 342 (1972) (live, nude entertainment may be proscribed from the premises of businesses operating under a state liquor license). Marco has made no attempt to establish an El Entertainment District and has failed to demonstrate that, if such an attempt were made, it would be doomed to failure. Although courts must be alert to the “possibility of pretextual use of power to zone as a means of suppressing expression,” it is not clear from the present record that this is such a case. Young v. American Mini Theatres, supra, 427 U.S. at 84, 96 S.Ct. at 2459 (Powell, J., concurring in the judgment and portions of the opinion).
At such time as Marco has attempted to establish an El Entertainment District and the qualified electors of Federal Heights have defeated such a proposal, then it would be in a position to complain of a denial of freedom of speech, and it would have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the zoning ordinance.
The majority posits the proposition that “whether the City will ever have such a district is to be determined by the unbridled and standardless decision of the people” and that “this is absolute censorship pending an election which may never be held.”
The majority opinion reflects little faith in the democratic process. We cannot presume that the people are misguided in their choices. If the Federal Heights ordinance in fact does misguide them, we can address the issue as part of a timely appeal. Given the necessary information, the people of Federal Heights are free to adopt an El Entertainment District ordinance and thereby establish an appropriate location for the type of entertainment which Marco proposes to offer.
If such an ordinance is not adopted, then Marco would, in my opinion, have standing to raise its constitutional arguments.
I would affirm the judgment of the district court.
I am authorized to say that Chief Justice HODGES and Justice LEE join in this dissent.