Ordinance No. 18617 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

VETO of such a center gives it the same function as the downtown public business district but the activities conducted in the mall of such centers by special request or design of the mall managers contribute to such a parallel function. ~. Substantial public monies for city services extension and favorable zoning have contributed to the efficacy of shop- ping center malls. In a sense these centers could not exist without this public investment which is of the size that city government and shopping centers are in a sense a -- partnership. And with that partnership came obligations on the part of the owners of such shopping centers to behave, in some ways, like governments--to allow an amount of free speech to occur without unreasonable. restraints. 7. The City has various law enforcement priorities. This ordi- nance de-emphasizes, as part of the City's prosecutorial discretion, the prosecution of certain types of crimes. In light of declining governmental revenues and the need to focus police resources into serious crimes, it is appropriate to decriminalize certain behavior such as the non-offensive conduct here sanctioned. S. In light of these reasons, the governmental partnership and physical distance from public lands has occurred only in the larger shopping centers of greater than 10,x04 square feet in mall areas. The Centre Court and Atrium facilities are close to public lands and have smaller mall areas of 4,500 and 6,50Q square feet respectively. The larger the mall area the more the shopping center takes on the attri- butes of a general public business district. ~. There are. mechanisms for the dissemination of commercial speech which are adequate and available. Generally commercial ideas are targeted to the public-~at--large and not a specific audience, e.g., the users of a particular product or customers of a particular store. There is no identifiable need for such commercial activity at these shopping centers. General rights to use public lands or other media for the dissemina- tion of commercial speech are sufficient. 10. on the other hand, the alternatives for noncommercial speech targeted to consumers or shoppers at a particular store at these large shopping centers are not viable. Leafleting at .the parking entrances might be unsafe, inconvenience those beyond the target audience, and result in substantial littering problems. Use of the general media by such no,n=:::-~~ commercial speech advocates is expensive and unavailable to those without substantial financial resources. 11. The operation of this ordinance will not reduce the value of commercial activity at these shopping center malls. If Findings - 2