I respectfully dissent. The trial court erred when it determined that the Ordinance was not the type authorized by the legislature under section 2(1) of the Act.
The City Council is the legislative body of the City of Houston, and it has the authority and responsibility to determine whether the construction and method of operation of “adult arcades” so adversely affects the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the city as to allow the exercise of its police power in regulating them. Neither the trial court nor this Court may substitute its finding of fact for that of the City Council in a situation such as this. City of Abilene v. Woodlock, 282 S.W.2d 736 (Tex.Civ.App.—Eastland 1955, writ ref’d) cert. denied 351 U.S. 925, 76 S.Ct. 782, 100 L.Ed. 1455; City of Houston v. Johnny Frank’s Auto Parts, 480 S.W.2d 774 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Safe Water Foundation v. City of Houston, 661 S.W.2d 190 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, writ ref’d n.r.e.) appeal dismissed 469 U.S. 801, 105 S.Ct. 55, 83 L.Ed.2d 6.
The Council’s reasonable finding that a condition exists, the control of which is a proper exercise of its police power, must be accepted by the courts as a basis for the validity of the objective of an ordinance if there is any legally sufficient evidence to *375support such a finding. Smith v. Davis, 426 S.W.2d 827 (Tex.Sup.1968); City of Waxahachie v. Watkins, 154 Tex. 206, 275 S.W.2d 477 (1955).
The Ordinance contains legislative findings of fact, based on reports from public health, fire and police officials and testimony at a public hearing, that adult arcades configured with enclosed booths represent a danger both to the public health, by facilitating sexual encounters and sexually transmitted diseases, and by creating a fire safety’ hazard.
An ordinance is presumed to be valid and the burden of showing its invalidity rests on the party attacking it. When a city government passes an ordinance that is final and conclusive, it cannot be revised by the courts unless the passing of the ordinance was arbitrary, unreasonable, and a clear abuse of power. Town of Ascarate v. Villalobos, 148 Tex. 254, 223 S.W.2d 945 (1949); City of Weslaco v. Melton, 158 Tex. 61, 308 S.W.2d 18 (1957).
The Ordinance is clearly of a type contemplated by the Act in that it addresses the interior configuration and construction of buildings, and is, on its face, “an ordinance relating to the manner ... methods, or means of construction of any building or other structure or improvement, including ... structural elements ... and fixtures....” The enclosed booths that the Ordinance seeks to eliminate are substantial structures of wood and sheetrock, which possess individual doors, and which extend from floor to ceiling. Although reasonable minds may differ as to whether a particular ordinance is an act in furtherance of the public’s health, safety, and welfare, this is no indication in the case at bar that the City clearly abused its discretion. City of Abilene, supra.
The trial court also found that the appellant failed to show a substantial danger of injury or adverse health impact as required by section 3 of the Act. When a society is attempting to protect and preserve itself, it should not have to wait for a specific injury to take place to prove that its course of action would be beneficial. We are presently faced with an epidemic of sobering consequences and proportions. A valid purpose of the Ordinance is to prevent the spread of life-threatening, sexually-transmitted diseases which endanger our society. It is hard to imagine a more dangerous health hazard or one from which there needs to be greater protection.
The trial court’s narrow reading of the Act takes from society a valuable tool for self-preservation. A society without effective means to preserve itself is a society that cannot survive. The legislature, in passing the Act, intended to enable cities to pass and enforce ordinances to counter real and perceived threats to public health and safety. The Ordinance is clearly aimed at a very real public health concern and employs a legitimate and legislatively authorized means to combat that threat. Not allowing the enforcement of the ordinance by an injunction cripples appellant’s efforts to provide for the public welfare of its citizens through health and safety ordinances. The Ordinance is of the type contemplated under section 2(1) and 2(2) of the Act and an injunction should have been issued to enforce it. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.