<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Community Defense Counsel &#187; Regulation (SOB): Alternative Sites</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/tag/regulation-sob-alternative-sites/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress</link>
	<description>Protecting Children and Their Neighborhoods</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 17:30:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>N.J. Supreme Court: Towns can reject sexually oriented businesses, citing locations in other states</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/01/20/n-j-supreme-court-towns-can-reject-sexually-oriented-businesses-citing-locations-in-other-states/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/01/20/n-j-supreme-court-towns-can-reject-sexually-oriented-businesses-citing-locations-in-other-states/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:32:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Alternative Sites]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: New Jersey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Borough of Sayreville v. 35 Club]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2663</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[HELD:  In evaluating the adequacy of alternative channels of communication when deciding an as-applied  constitutional challenge to the State’s statute limiting the places where sexually-oriented businesses may operate, trial courts are not precluded from considering the existence of sites that are located outside of New Jersey but that are found within the relevant market area as defined by the parties’ experts.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/01/20/n-j-supreme-court-towns-can-reject-sexually-oriented-businesses-citing-locations-in-other-states/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NJ Superior Court reverses injunction against sexually oriented business, holds internet is not sufficient “alternative forum”</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/09/17/nj-superior-court-reverses-injunction-against-sexually-oriented-business-holds-internet-is-not-sufficient-%e2%80%9calternative-forum%e2%80%9d/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/09/17/nj-superior-court-reverses-injunction-against-sexually-oriented-business-holds-internet-is-not-sufficient-%e2%80%9calternative-forum%e2%80%9d/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Sep 2010 21:27:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Alternative Sites]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Licensing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: New Jersey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2431</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a3537-08.opn.html"><em>Borough of Sayreville v. Club 35, LLC</em></a>, No. A-3537-08T1 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Sept. 17, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/09/17/nj-superior-court-reverses-injunction-against-sexually-oriented-business-holds-internet-is-not-sufficient-%e2%80%9calternative-forum%e2%80%9d/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law Review: Alternatives for Adult Uses Required When Town is Sued</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/05/26/law-review-alternatives-for-adult-uses-required-when-town-is-sued/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/05/26/law-review-alternatives-for-adult-uses-required-when-town-is-sued/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2010 22:05:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Alternative Sites]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Zoning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: TJS of New York v Town of Smithtown]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2264</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Alternatives for Adult Uses Required When Town is Sued</em>
Anthony S. Guardino, 5/26/2010 N.Y.L.J. 5, (col. 2)

"The particular issue in TJS was whether the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance should only be evaluated with regard to the ‘alternative avenues of communication‘ the ordinance left open at the time it was passed, or those it left open at the time it was challenged."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/05/26/law-review-alternatives-for-adult-uses-required-when-town-is-sued/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>2nd Circuit: Courts must consider &#8220;adequacy of alternative sites&#8221; at time of challenge to SOB ordinance</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/03/10/2nd-circuit-courts-must-consider-adequacy-of-alternative-sites-at-time-of-challenge-to-sob-ordinance/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/03/10/2nd-circuit-courts-must-consider-adequacy-of-alternative-sites-at-time-of-challenge-to-sob-ordinance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:04:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Alternative Sites]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Zoning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: TJS of New York v Town of Smithtown]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2145</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.communitydefense.org/cases/20100310.pdf"><em>TJS of New York, Inc. v. Town of Smithtown</em></a>, No. 08-2789-cv (2nd Cir. March 10, 2010)

2nd Circuit: When evaluating First Amendment challenges to a zoning ordinance, a court must consider the adequacy of alternatives at the time the ordinance is challenged.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/03/10/2nd-circuit-courts-must-consider-adequacy-of-alternative-sites-at-time-of-challenge-to-sob-ordinance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

