In City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters, Inc. (1986) 475 U.S. 41, the Court addressed the validity of zoning ordinances regulating adult businesses. Renton sought to regulate adult motion picture theaters by prohibiting their location within 1,000 feet of any residential zone, single or multiple family dwelling, church, park or school. (Id. at pp. 44-45.) Unlike the ordinance in Young, which both limited proximity to sensitive uses and dispersed adult businesses, Renton's zoning ordinance had the effect of concentrating locations for adult theaters. (Id. at p. 52.) But similar to the ordinance in Young, it did not ban adult businesses altogether. (Id. at p. 46) The Court thus analyzed the zoning ordinance as a form of time, place, and manner regulation, which regulations, the Court held, are "acceptable so long as they are designed to serve a substantial governmental interest and do not unreasonably limit alternative avenues of communication." (Id. at p. 47.) The Court found the ordinance content neutral because it was aimed, not at the adult films themselves, "but rather at the secondary effects of such theaters on the surrounding community." (City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters, Inc., supra, 475 U.S. at p. 47.) The Court observed that while the First Amendment protects sexually explicit communication, "'It is manifest that society's interest in protecting this type of expression is of a wholly different, and lesser, magnitude than the interest in untrammeled political debate.'" (Id. at p. 49, fn. 2.) The ordinance by its terms was "designed to prevent crime, protect the city's retail trade, maintain property values, and generally 'protect and preservee the quality of the city's neighborhoods, commercial districts, and the quality of urban life" (id. at p. 48), and for these reasons satisfied the requirement that it further a substantial interest. The Court noted "a city's 'interest in attempting to preserve the quality of urban life is one that must be accorded high respect.'" (Id. at p. 50.) The Renton ordinance also allowed for sufficient alternative avenues of communication because it left "some 520 acres, or more than five percent of the entire land area of Renton, open to use as adult theater sites" consisting of "'ample, accessible real estate,' including 'acreage in all stages of development from raw land to developed, industrial, warehouse, office, and shopping space that is criss-crossed by freeways, highways, and roads.'" (City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters, Inc., supra, 475 U.S. at p. 53.) The Court's conclusion that the ordinance permitted for ample alternative sites was unaffected by the theater's concerns that "'practically none'" of the undeveloped land was for sale or lease, or that "'commercially viable'" sites for adult theaters were already occupied by existing businesses. (Id. at p. 53.) The Court stated: "That respondents must fend for themselves in the real estate market, on an equal footing with other prospective purchasers and lessees, does not give rise to a First Amendment violation. And although we have cautioned against the enactment of zoning regulations that have 'the effect of suppressing, or greatly restricting access to, lawful speech,'we have never suggested that the First Amendment compels the Government to ensure that adult theaters, or any other kinds of speech-related businesses for that matter, will be able to obtain sites at bargain prices." (Id. at p. 54.)