In Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc. (1976) 427 U.S. 50, the Court addressed the validity of zoning ordinances regulating adult businesses. The Court could not agree on a single rationale for its decision, but held that Detroit's zoning ordinance, which prohibited locating an adult theater within 1,000 feet of any two other "regulated uses" or within 500 feet of any residential zone, did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. (Id. at pp. 72-73.) The Court held that the zoning ordinance: (1) did not entirely ban adult businesses; (2) was content neutral; (3) was thus properly analyzed as a form of time, place, and manner regulation; (4) under this test passed constitutional muster. (Id. at p. 63 & fn. 18.) In Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc. (1976) the United States Supreme Court held that two operators of adult motion picture theaters lacked standing to bring First and Fourteenth Amendment facial challenges to "'Anti-Skid Row'" ordinances that precluded the clustering of adult businesses because they acknowledged the ordinances applied to them under any scenario. (Id. at p. 54.) The court explained that "even if there may be some uncertainty about the effect of the ordinances on other litigants, they are unquestionably applicable to these respondents. The record indicates that both theaters propose to offer adult fare on a regular basis. . . . It is clear, therefore, that any element of vagueness in these ordinances has not affected these respondents." (Id. at p. 59 & fn. 16.) The Court concluded the zoning ordinances would not have a significant deterrent effect on the exhibition of movies protected by the First Amendment. The court explained that the "only vagueness in the ordinances relates to the amount of sexually explicit activity that may be portrayed before the material can be said to be 'characterized by an emphasis' on such matter. For most films the question will be readily answerable; to the extent that an area of doubt exists, we see no reason why the ordinances are not 'readily subject to a narrowing construction by the state courts.'" (Young, supra, 427 U.S. at p. 61.) Further, the court noted "there is surely a less vital interest in the uninhibited exhibition of material that is on the borderline between pornography and artistic expression than in the free dissemination of ideas of social and political significance." (Ibid.)