Legislation that would create statewide restrictions on where sexually-oriented businesses such as adult bookstores and strip clubs could locate is headed to the full Indiana House for consideration.
The proposal passed out of the House Local Government Committee unanimously on Wednesday, with all public testimony in favor of the measure.
House Bill 1122 would prohibit a registered sexually-oriented business from operating within 1,000 feet of a facility that caters to minors. That includes schools, daycares, a YMCA, public swimming pools and playgrounds, as well as businesses such as arcades and trampoline parks. It would not apply to businesses inside shopping malls.
The measure would apply to all new businesses moving in. Preexisting businesses in violation would have until 2025 to move. The bill would also protect municipalities from litigation from businesses that would have to move.
While many communities already have restrictions on sexually-oriented businesses, bill author Rep. Mike Speedy, R-Indianapolis, said the bill could help locales that don’t have regulations in place and are surprised when a new business moves in.
Local governments also could adopt regulations more restrictive than the proposed state standards.
The American Family Association, the Indiana Family Institute, the Association of Indiana Counties and the Indiana Catholic Conference were all organizations in favor of the legislation.
Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family Association, said it was not unusual for an “adult business” to open near a Chuck E. Cheese restaurant or a trampoline park, and local governments are not prepared for it.
“They’re often scrambling to react or adopt an ordinance quickly that they don’t have on the books already,” Clark said.
Ryan Mann, special counsel to Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett, said the city supports the measure. Indianapolis already prohibits sexually oriented businesses within 1,000 feet of a religious institution, school, public park, recreation area or any residentially zoned area.
“No doubt this is an issue that many, many members face in their communities and that we face,” Mann said. “So, this helps provide a clear policy going forward.”
7 thoughts on “Lawmakers consider statewide restrictions on the location of sexually-oriented businesses”
Oh no. Sex! The horror!
Obviously, this is about the Hustler Hollywood that won its lawsuit against Indianapolis and recently opened near the Chuck E Cheese in Castleton. One would assume they’ve written this bill in a way that closes whatever loophole was deemed sufficient to allow HH to prevail. I wonder if this would require such an existing business to close when an arcade, church, school, etc opens within 1,000 feet.
No, Speedy had a Lions Den open in his district in an old KFC building walking distance from a daycare and a trampoline park. I’m not sure how it is a threat to either, but this gives some extra leverage
Chuck, the zoning code spells out the increased levels of crime that statistically are proven to follow these types of establishments and we don’t want those crimes in our backyards, literally in our backyard. Would you?
Aha. I guess that does makes sense with a trampoline park being mentioned somewhere in the story, and Speedy being a southsider, I imagine his district is quite a jaunt from Castleton.
I think the bill gives them until 2025 to comply with the zoning restrictions.
I am not fan of these types of businesses, but I’m also live-and-let-live.
I’m not a lawyer, but let’s play along until one comes along. This seems like a constructive forcible taking of property under eminent domain. As such, the state should be required to compensate the operators of these businesses for the diminished value if they own the property and are forced to sell, or to fix it up and re-rent to someone else. And the expenses of moving, etc. The fact that it doesn’t take effect for three years doesn’t change the fact it’s a slow-motion taking.
If they business owner rents, what are they supposed to do if they are obligated under the lease beyond 12/31/2024? Again, the state should have to make their landlord whole, not make the renter pay for a building they can no longer occupy. Or if they have an option to extend the lease, same issue. If the lease ends before 2025, then I suppose there is only a moderate impact as to the expense of relocation.