Document text
Patridge helps fight sex shop in Portland The Associated Press PORTLAND -- In their efforts to keep a sex shop out of their neighborhood, a group of community activists, with the help of a Medford lawmaker, wants to change the Oregon Constitution. Castle Superstores, an Arizona-based retailer of sexually explicit merchandise, opened its first Oregon store in Medford last fall and is planning another in Portland. Activists fighting the Portland superstore are working with state Rep. Rob Patridge, R-Medford, who has drafted a resolution for the constitutional amendment. The state constitution prohibits local governments from confining such businesses to certain zones. Patridge tried to keep Castle out of Medford. The City Council's plan to block the store with zoning restrictions was ruled unconstitutional. The free-speech provisions in the state constitution make it impossible for local governments to regulate adult businesses on the basis of what they sell. Oregon voters have twice rejected ballot measures -- in 1994 and 1996 -- that would have amended the constitution to allow such zoning restrictions. One measure would have eliminated free-speech protections for obscenity, and the other would have brought them in line with federal standards. But Patridge has narrowed the proposal to giving communities local zoning authority over sexually oriented businesses. Patridge said the proposal has bipartisan support and that work sessions have included municipal lobbyists as well as librarians and representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union, which had opposed the previous ballot measures. "We took the time to bring in all types of people with concerns about these regulations, and that's why it's so narrowly defined," said Patridge, who has traveled to Portland to meet with concerned residents. "The previous problem was the broad definition of previous bills and their possibly unintended side effects and unintended violations of civil liberties. That led to defeat." Still, opponents of previous efforts said no language is restrictive enough to change their minds. "We will certainly oppose any amendment to the Oregon Constitution that weakens the expression of free speech in Oregon," said David Fidanque, executive director of ACLU of Oregon. Janet Arenz, chairwoman of the Oregon Coalition for Free Expression, a group that opposed the previous measures, said a constitutional amendment isn't needed. According to her, the statutory and legal authority already exists to control criminal or public nuisance problems arising from any kind of business. "I believe they haven't looked for these solutions because it's really not about zoning," Arenz said. "It's really about `Not in my back yard,' and it's really about, `I don't like this stuff out there."' Mail Tribune Copyright � The Mail Tribune 1999, Medford, Oregon USA