Cities’ Power to Limit Adult Shops Upheld : Supreme Court: State justices say businesses may be forced to move even if no other commercially viable site is available. The decision stems from a National City case.

The state Supreme Court on Thursday gave cities more power to restrict adult businesses, saying such establishments can be forced to relocate whether or not there are other commercially viable sites available.

The ruling was a victory for a coalition of 50 cities--including Los Angeles and San Diego--that had warned that few municipalities could effectively enforce their anti-pornography zoning laws if required to guarantee economically practical alternative sites.

In a 5-2 decision, the high court upheld a National City zoning ordinance barring adult businesses within 1,000 feet of residential areas or 1,500 feet of schools, parks or other adult businesses. An exception permits their location in enclosed retail malls, isolated from view from the street.

Operators of Chuck’s Bookstore in National City, faced with an order to relocate, challenged the ordinance. They contended they could not afford to move to an undeveloped property and said they were denied rental space at three existing shopping malls.

A state Court of Appeal struck down the ordinance on grounds it failed to provide practical economic alternatives for the bookstore. The high court overturned the appellate ruling Thursday, saying the ordinance was a valid attempt to reduce crime and blight in the community.

“The Constitution does not saddle municipalities with the task of ensuring either the popularity or economic success of adult businesses,” Justice Armand Arabian wrote for the court majority.

In dissent, Justice Stanley Mosk, joined by Justice Joyce L. Kennard, said the ordinance effectively denied bookstore operators their 1st Amendment rights by providing only an illusory right to locate in family-oriented shopping malls that obviously would reject them as tenants.

“Apparently in the (court) majority’s view, the law may with lofty impartiality permit an adult bookstore to locate anywhere available to Saks Fifth Avenue,” Mosk wrote.

Linda Kaye Harter, assistant city attorney in National City, welcomed the ruling as particularly important to smaller and older communities facing decline. “It would have been very difficult for cities to take on the task of guaranteeing economically viable sites for adult businesses, especially in Southern California where land is scarce and expensive,” she said.

Norman Atkins of Beverly Hills, an attorney for Chuck’s Bookstore, said the decision will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court as a violation of the right of free expression.

“This ordinance provides no realistic opportunity to relocate,” Atkins said. “The ruling will encourage cities to enact convoluted ordinances just like National City’s that are slanted toward prohibiting anything like adult materials to be sold.”

Chuck’s Bookstore was opened in 1986 by Steven D. Wiener and his sister, Patricia Sanders. The city, invoking its zoning ordinance, sought a court order forcing the store to relocate or close down.

Nearby residents testified that patrons urinated in their yards and left behind condoms and pornographic material. A local news reporter said he had observed patrons engaging in sex acts on the premises of the store.

In their decision Thursday, the justices noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had given cities discretion to disperse or concentrate adult businesses so long as there were “reasonable alternative avenues of communication.” But that did not mean cities must guarantee economic viability, the state court said.

National City’s ordinance offered a reasonable alternative by providing 572 acres of commercially zoned land on which the store could relocate, the court said. Further, it said, there were vacant units at the malls and evidence of only generalized opposition to the store.

The court acknowledged that there might be some zoning ordinance mandating economic restrictions so severe it would be unconstitutional. But National City’s ordinance was not unduly restrictive, the justices said.