Controlling the location of sexually oriented businesses (SOBs): A Dallas, Texas case study

Abstract

The adult entertainment industry and its outlet and distribution through sexually oriented businesses (SOBs) have moved into the mainstream of American popular culture during the last 20 years. Despite some regulatory guidelines from the Supreme Court, SOB owners, neighborhoods, business groups, and municipalities are engaged in an almost continuous battle over where such establishments should be allowed to locate. This study begins with an analysis of the legal and social context within which the SOB industry has emerged and then focuses on a case study of SOB location in Dallas, Texas. The case study examines the recent growth of SOBs in Dallas, Texas, the evolution of zoning strategies to regulate the industry, and the relationship between SOBs and the incidence of crime. The results suggest that current zoning strategies have not been successful at controlling SOB location in the past for two major reasons. First, the ability of SOB owners to either challenge successfully the existing law or to find loopholes in the law has limited the effectiveness of current regulations and, second, the constitutionally protected nature of some forms of adult entertainment makes locationally based strategies for their control marginal at best. In addition, the study finds that the covariation of arrest rates and SOB location is weak generally, although the incidence of prostitution and indecent exposure tend to be higher in areas where SOBs are concentrated. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Effects of sex premises on neighbourhoods: Residents, local planning and the geographies of a controversial land use

“…This research has sought to elucidate 'geograph[ies] of [sex premises] planning practice' (Forester 1983). Sex premises land-use planning is a complex terrain (which includes planning legislation, planning instruments, development processes and judicial hearings), which we explore by examining the roles of various participants (Lyons et al 1993;Papayanis 2000;Paul et al 2001;Sanchez 2004) and the arguments and evidence used to plan sex premises (Prior 2008;. Most research to date has focused directly on the contents of planning processes (Kerkin 2004;Prior 2008).…”

“…This research has sought to elucidate ‘geograph[ies] of [sex premises] planning practice’ (Forester 1983). Sex premises land‐use planning is a complex terrain (which includes planning legislation, planning instruments, development processes and judicial hearings), which we explore by examining the roles of various participants (Lyons et al . 1993; Papayanis 2000; Paul et al .…”

Away from prying eyes? The urban geographies of `adult entertainment'

“…In most towns and cities, however, there is no 'red-light' district as such, and venues have characteristically been scattered across the less salubrious parts of the city. Liepe-Levinson (2002: 22) accordingly argues 'the sleazy nudie bar, hidden away in a municipal district of-ill repute' epitomizes both the 'cultural and geographical location' of adult entertainment in most cities (see also Lyons et al, 1999).…”

Noxious Neighbours? Interrogating the Impacts of Sex Premises in Residential Areas

“…An important theme in current writing on the regulation of commercial sex is that planning and licensing law is becoming more important than the criminal law in controlling the visibility and location of sex premises (Coulmont and Hubbard, 2010;Doan, 2011;Hubbard et al, 2009;Lyons et al, 1999;Papayanis, 2000;Prior, 2008). This means that it is planners, licensing offi cers, and environmental health offi cers, rather than the police per se, who are charged with ensuring that sex premises do not have 'negative externalities' for those living and working nearby.…”

“…This means that it is planners, licensing offi cers, and environmental health offi cers, rather than the police per se, who are charged with ensuring that sex premises do not have 'negative externalities' for those living and working nearby. In practice, this means that sex premises are encouraged to conduct their business in a discrete manner, and are seldom permitted near 'sensitive' land uses such as schools, religious establishments, or areas of 'family' dwelling (Hubbard et al, 2009;Lyons et al, 1999). Irrespective of this, when sex businesses are permitted they can face considerable opposition from local residents and business owners who depict them as a 'locally unwanted land use' (Boffa et al, 1994;Hickey, 2011).…”