Tuesday, October 24, 2006

The City's Justification

The below is a copy of the Memorandum that the City intends to rely upon to justify the proposed zoning measure to banish adult establishments to the outskirts of town. You know, where few, if any, downtown residents and busniess customers will have ready pedestrian access like they do for any other book and video stores that may locate in the vicinity of 135 King Street. The irony is that the City's justification is that the porn store will inhibit, rather than promote, pedistrial traffic in that section of King Street.

If Cap Video was targeting non-Northampton residential customers, then it would have found far less expensive property to buy or lease further away from downtown, closer to and more visible from Interstate 91. Instead, the store is conveniently located to draw to the King Street neighborhood pedestrian traffic from downtown, as people go about their daily business or their evening festivities.

And the City really presents no hard evidence to justify its claim that the threat of potential secondary effects is any less based upon the mere size of an adult establishment. This is not a big box issue; Cap Video has no plans to expand the size of the existing structure, which really is no larger, and may be smaller, than many of the establishments nearby.

What the City really intends to accomplish is clear. Banish a certain type of adult content because it implies that certain types of offensive sexual conduct should be accepted, if not celebrated. Put it where the residents and customers of downtown Northampton are less likely to travel, and thus enjoy the material and consider the merits of its message. Dear City of Northampton, be free as Nopornnorthampton to counter speech you find offensive and harmful, but how dare you disingenuously contend that this proposed zoning is anything but real censorship of objectionable speech.

The Supreme Court opinion in the case City of Renton upon which the justification for this zoning proposal rests is just as disingenuous. It was written by the same man who voted to uphold criminal laws against homosexuality.

Many of our civic leaders happen to be gay. It seems that many, but not all of them, believe it is now safe to turn upon the very same liberalization of sexuality and free speech that historically allowed them to gain the acceptance of mainstream society that they enjoy today. In fact, they gleefully rely upon the City of Renton Supreme Court opinion to prove that they are not violating free speech.
Now, that is reprehensive.

Yours/A.C.
















No comments: