Did the city of Lakewood influence the outcome of Prop 1?
Did the City influence the outcome of Prop.1, the people’s initiative to ban gambling in Lakewood that failed 3-2 in last November’s General election?
The September/October, 2008 issue of Lakewood Connections – the city-authored newsletter of happenings throughout Lakewood – has been viewed by some as a ‘hit-piece’ – an unfair advantage taken by the City vs. the Citizens Initiative. A full-front cover article, and an inside viewpoint by City Manager Andrew Neiditz, detailed the impacts should Prop. 1 be successful.
Concerned that their views in their publication might prompt a citizen complaint against the City for allegedly opposing Prop.1, the City submitted a draft to the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) for review. According to several e-mail exchanges between the city and the PDC – documents obtained via Public Disclosure – though the City believed their draft “purely factual and to the point”, the PDC disagreed and suggested several changes to the City – recommendations made in order that the city presentation to the public be “more fair and objective,” and to convey “a tenor and tone that does not appear to oppose Proposition 1.”
So radical were the tone-and-tenor, even-truth, recommended changes by the PDC, that a response from the city suggested the PDC rewrite had “gutted our language.” Indeed, four entire paragraphs were deleted by the PDC and statements and phrases from others.
The city, among other things, wanted to warn the public that at least one casino manager had indicated the city would face “potentially significant liability” if the casinos were forced to close. That, however, was deemed by the PDC to “very quickly depart from an accurate portrayal of the costs and other anticipated impacts of Prop.1.” The PDC suggested in fact that the city’s statement was “speculative.”
Indeed Lakewood officials should have known the legal precedence in the city’s favor that would support their ban on gambling – if ever the council were to really care to pursue that route. Five years ago Pierce County successfully appealed their ban on gambling and the court ruled that RCW 9.46.295 “clearly and specifically stated that the County could ban gambling at any time” with no recouping of casino’s investment. As early as 2003 a similar case supported the City of Edmonds in its ban on gambling, the effect of which was to immediately close a casino with no phase-out allowed.
Lakewood further wanted to alert citizens that the city was intending to win – at the state level – the ability to zone casinos, thereby implying that Lakewood had the issue under control, that gambling would be limited to the I-5 corridor, and that a ban on gambling would thus be an unnecessary and excessive measure. The PDC nixed that paragraph as well, cautioning the city that such legislative attempts had always failed in the past and there was at best only “debatable success” in yet another run before state lawmakers “therefore this should not be presented as fact in the context of the Prop.1 election.”
But it was already too late.
In the June 17th Tacoma News Tribune, Andrew Neiditz, in an article entitled Myths cloud Lakewood anti-gambling initiative wrote, “As the city manager, it is not my place to argue the merits of this initiative, but in light of various comments and questions I have read or heard firsthand from Lakewood citizens, I must clarify several points.” One of the points Neiditz wanted to “clarify” concerned the very matter the PDC would later warn him about. Neiditz continued, “Our citizens should be clear that the city is intent on obtaining the authority from the state Legislature in 2009 to zone gambling establishments, and that is on our list of legislative priorities as well as that of the Association of Washington Cities. This legislation came very close to being accomplished in the past. It succeeded in one house but ran into obstacles in the other which appear now to have been overcome.”
As it turned out the PDC projection of “debatable success” was prophetic for not only did HB2162 not “overcome” the obstacles it had encountered in the past, it was not even close this time. The bill for which Lakewood lobbied hard did not even clear the House Labor and Commerce Committee that initially sponsored it.
A final statement from the PDC to the City of Lakewood warned: “A public agency’s communications on a ballot proposition should speak only to what is being voted on, and not to potential secondary or tertiary effects. The information (the city had drafted) is speculative and strongly conveys a tenor of opposition to Prop.1.”