Laserfiche WebLink
#11-D: Government Regulation of"Adult" Businesses through Zoning and Anti-Nudity <br /> Ordinances: Debunking the Legal Myth of Negative Secondary Effects (2010) <br /> #11-E: Peep show establishments, police activity, public place, and time: A study of <br /> secondary effects in San Diego, California (2010) <br /> #11-F: Erotic Dancing, Liquor, and Crime: An $Empirical Critique of Virginia Statute <br /> Changes Restricting Liquor Service and Adult entertainment (2009) <br /> #11-G: Examining the Relationship Between Adult Oriented businesses and <br /> Surrounding Property Value in Ohio (2007) <br /> #11-H: Testing Supreme Court assumptions in California v. La Rue: Is there justification <br /> for prohibiting sexually explicit messages in establishments that sell liquor? (2007) <br /> #11-I: A legal and Empirical Perspective on Crime & Adult Establishments: a Secondary <br /> effects Study in San Antonio, Texas (2006) <br /> #11-J: Investigation Into the Nature and Scope of Secondary effects related to the <br /> Operation of Adult Clubs Located in the City of Los Angeles (2006) <br /> #11-J: Investigation Into the Nature and Scope of Secondary Effects related to the <br /> Operation of Adult Clubs Located in the City of Los Angeles (2006) <br /> #11-K: An Examination of the Assumption that Adult businesses are Associated with <br /> Crime in Surrounding Areas: A Secondary Effects Study in Charlotte, North Carolina <br /> (2004) <br /> #11-L: Examining the Relationship Between Business that Comply with the "60/40" <br /> Adult Zoning regulations and Surrounding Property Values in New York City (2002) <br /> #11-M: Testing Assumptions made by the Supreme Court Concerning the Negative <br /> Secondary Effects of Adult businesses: QA Quasi-Experimental Approach (2002) <br /> #11-N Measuring Secondary Effects of Adult businesses using Spatio-Temporal <br /> Estimation of Real Estate Price Appreciation (2001) <br /> #12: 70 Cases in Opposition to Hall County Proposed Zoning Amendment: <br /> Mr. Spencer read a statement and reviewed the exhibits noting the following information #2 and <br /> #3 regarding the time restriction and the buffer zone and stated that the time restriction and the <br /> buffer zone restriction have been found unconstitutional. He also noted in #4 these were urban <br /> studies in large cities He also stated that the zoning should be done by the Nebraska Zoning <br /> and Planning. He also stated that Mr. Valentino has a conflict of interest representing zoning <br /> and planning and serving as defense attorney for the county. <br /> 6 <br />