Lawmakers asked to send zoning measure to ballot

Among those who testified for a measure proposed for the Nov. 2 ballot were state representatives from both parties, and city council members and residents of both cities, where openings of Castle Superstores have touched off controversies in the past year.

Members of a Portland citizens' group and Medford business owner Karen Hanken urged a House panel to approve the measure. Hanken recounted several incidents, including public urination and masturbation, she said occurred in the vicinity of her Biddle Road sewing store, which is near the Castle Superstore.

"These may seem like relatively inconsequential complaints to you," she told the lawmakers. "No one has been physically assaulted or fatally injured -- yet. But they affect the neighborhood and the ability of my business to succeed."

Communities do not have the power to decide where such businesses can be, unless they prove to be nuisances and crimes can be documented.

"There are significant problems with not being able to zone sexually oriented businesses," said Rep. Rob Patridge, R-Medford, the measure's chief sponsor. "Several studies have concluded there are erosions of property values and crime problems that come with these businesses.

"This is about safe and healthy communities. We allow zoning for many things. All we are asking for here is have this (measure) very narrowly tailored. This bill is about zoning, not sexually oriented businesses."

When asked, Patridge said he doubted whether he could apply new zoning to existing businesses.

House Joint Resolution 52 would change the Oregon Constitution's guarantee of free expression, which the Oregon Supreme Court has interpreted more broadly in a 1987 case than the free-speech clause in the U.S. Constitution. If the Legislature refers it and voters approve it, local governments could zone businesses whose "principal" activity is to produce, distribute or display representations of sexual activity.

Medford City Councilman Curt Bennett recounted the City Council's attempts to write such a zoning ordinance. The city attorney and a panel of private attorneys advised against it, and the council finally rejected it.

"It was felt that it cannot be done," Bennett said. "It was in frustration that we were told we had better change the constitution if we want to have any type of local control over where these businesses go."

Joining Bennett were two Portland city commissioners, Jim Francesconi and Charles Hales.

Patridge said he will propose changes to broaden the definition slightly to include nude dancing and entertainment, such as that staged at the Le Dolls nightclub in downtown Medford.

The committee will schedule another session on the measure later.

The House passed a different measure in 1993 to allow communities to zone such businesses, but a Senate committee killed it, so it never reached voters.

Voters rejected wider attempts in 1994 and 1996 to narrow the free-expression guarantee of the Oregon Constitution. To deal with potential objections, Patridge and Portland City Attorney Madelyn Wessel said they drafted a narrower exemption.

But Dave Fidanque, executive director of the Oregon affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the proposed measure itself may fail in its goals. He said it also is vague about what cities and counties can do.