In January, 2007, lobbyists for the AWC and the minicasinos combined efforts, unsuccessfully, to win state support for a bill that effectively would cut a deal with jurisdictions to stop banning casinos altogether and instead create gambling -zones.  A similar bill, HB 2162, failed to move out of committee just this last 2009 session.

But Lakewood leadership persists in its efforts to partner with the gambling industry under the guise of ‘control’.

This previous month the AWC held its regional meeting in Tacoma.  In attendance, along with about 35 others representing most of the cities in Pierce County, were Mayor Doug Richardson, Councilmember Walter Neary, City Manager Andrew Neiditz, and Communications Director Jeff Brewster.   In his City Manager’s report of October 11, Neiditz stated, “It is anticipated that AWC will continue to support the issue of local control over gambling in the upcoming legislative session.”

However, in these continued rebuffs of such efforts by state lawmakers, precedent has established legislators as representative of the people – not lobbyists, not the AWC, and certainly not casino owners – and such precedent should prevail again.

Zoning implicitly has the effect of endorsing gambling by legitimizing it as a commercial activity similar to general retail or light industry.  We remind all of the legislature’s own statement in the enabling statute that authorizes the local jurisdictions to ban commercial gambling activities. That legislation recognizes that commercial gambling is a social risk given the known linkages to organized crime and public corruption. Further, commercial gambling carries grave risks to individuals and their families due to its addictive nature.  Any legislation which “lowers the bar” to facilitate gambling is a threat to people, families, jobs and communities.  Zoning would “lower the bar” because it would give only the appearance of effective control while opening the door to more commercial gambling institutions within every community (self described by their own advertising as, “non-destination” casinos). This is bad policy and a step backward for cities and towns throughout Washington.

The zoning measure is a parallel effort by commercial gambling to expand revenue generating options.  An additional measure is the effort to allow slot-machines. This effort was unsuccessful in 2004 with I-892. Commercial gambling representatives have stated more recently their intent to try again.  Given the Gambling Commission recent approval of increased wager limits, more players per table, and Baccarat (and with the precursors of slots having been introduced), gambling ‘control’ bills are, in reality, a part of the strategy to significantly increase commercial gambling throughout the state.

The very fact that casinos back such bills raises the question as to whether this is a city-initiated ‘control’ issue, or rather an attempt by casinos to wrest control of gambling from the city.

There is no “up-side” to commercial gambling.  Gambling has “a poor record as an economic multiplier” (Jan. 2007, Wall Street Journal) so in a worsening economy shall we revitalize neighborhoods by further exacerbating our city’s dependence upon an industry shown to be “a net economic and social minus”?

Can we say with integrity that such attempts by Lakewood upholds “the interests of preserving the public health, safety and welfare of the people as established by the Washington State Constitution” when the known and quantifiable economic, social, and cultural deleterious effects of convenience casinos prove just the opposite?

Should the Washington State Legislature be bowing to the pressure of, and worse partnering with, an industry that threatened, in the words of Lakewood’s Mayor Emeritus Lt. Gen. (ret.) William H. Harrison, “if we did not go along with this (allowing gambling to exist) we were going to be sued and break the city”?  Commercial gambling is not our friend.   Also, it is not a legitimate commercial activity.  Our elected representatives need to say this strongly. We must not allow commercial gambling to have any more concessions.

Same old/new business around town

The proposed budget for 2010 however, seven months later, expects that source of dollars to remain consistent at $3M.  Actually it is apparent that the contribution of gambling to the general fund is now 8.3 percent, up from 7 percent in 2008, making this industry number four in players at the revenue table.  So, in the interest of integrity, what is the plan by which the council intends to keep its promise?

The entire concept of weaning the city from gambling revenue is actually not possible without the elimination of casinos…..or the elimination of the gambling tax…..actually both. There is no other way apparently. The problem with elimination of the gambling tax while casinos remain in business would be political suicide. If it weren’t for the money, people would immediately turn on the casinos for what they are: a drain on the rest of the economy. Eliminating casinos would cut off revenues to the city and council members won’t let that happen. So we have a dilemma.

Another alternative exists. A trust fund can be set up as part of the reserve into which gambling revenue can in increasingly greater percentages be placed as part of a reserve not to be spent for a length of time (5-10 years?) and only then for long term capital projects to which the city will commit today. During this period gambling revenue will become an increasingly smaller and smaller part of the general fund (and larger part of the trust fund) until entirely eliminated. In that year it is eliminated, the city council can vote to close casinos in time certain eliminating both the casino and gambling revenue simultaneously. For instance in a 5 year plan the following could happen (based upon current projections of gambling revenue and city budgets)

Year           GF Budget$        Gambling Tax$            Trust fund$          GFGambling Revenue$   Gambling%GF

2010             $37M                    $3M                         20% ($600K)                    $2.4M                   6.5%

2011            $38M                    $3.2M                        40% ($1.3M)                    $1.9M                    5.0%

2012            $39M                    $3.4M                        60% ($2M)                        $1.4M                   3.6%

2013            $41M                    $3.6M                        80% ($2.9M)                      $700K                  1.7%

2014            $42M                    $3.9M                        100% ($3.9M)                     $0                        0%

Thus casinos could be eliminated in 2014 or 2015 at the latest and have no impact on the general fund budget. Additionally the trust fund containing between $6.9M (4 years) and $10.7M (5 years) would be available for council us to fund major capital projects (hopefully planned during the 5 years that gambling is on its way out) rather than burning through this money on an annual basis to pay for operating expenses….i.e. living beyond government’s means.

This can be done only if the council has the guts to stand up to the city manager, staff and casinos, begin gradual budget cuts and has the self discipline to leave the trust fund alone for the alloted time and then only use it for the intended purpose. The temptation will be to tap the trust fund to cover operational costs but I think a firm commitment to future capital projects will tie the council’s hands…..they’d know that a day of reckoning was coming and there better be a big chunk of money in that fund to pay for it.

Hope this lays out a viable alternative to doing nothing with a wink and a nod about “weaning” by the current council.

Friday, August 28, 2009

Crime in Lakewood: Gang Activity and Violence are on the increase

Some of you will recall the post below asking if anyone had questions or concerns about crime in town based on recent statistics report. The report came to my attention because the Lakewood City Council was supposed to have a discussion in front of the City Council about crime trends, and we didn’t.

Frankly, I didn’t hear from a lot of folks. Crime doesn’t seem to be much of an issue. This tells me crime may be a simmering but not front-burner issue for the kind of people who read this blog or follow me on Facebook.

The numbers, though, tell a somewhat different story. I’m going to humbly suggest to my colleagues on the Lakewood City Council that we keep crime and crime prevention at the front of our minds as we enter the planning process for the 2010 budget.

Absent a discussion in front of the council, I did some number-crunching myself.And the numbers about gangs are worth knowing.

Based on current trends, we’re set to have more gang arrests this year than we have in any of the last five years in Lakewood. If trends continue, there will be 116 people arrested for gang-related activity, versus 113 arrested in 2006.

In April, May and June of this year, there were 35 people arrested for gang-related activity, the second highest number of any three months in five years (there were 62 arrested in October, November and December of 2006)

Year to year, that means 116 people would be arrested this year, versus 77 last year, an increase of 50 percent.

In terms of overall crime, other numbers are distressing. Violent crime for the first six months of 2009 is up 27 percent from the same period last year. Apparently a lot of that increase is due to the horrible crime of domestic violence, and I’ll see if we can get some numbers released about the trends in that crime over the last five years.

There is good news! Property crime is down 17 percent from the previous year. So that’s good.

And let me stress, these numbers are no reflection on the police department and the volunteers of the town who seek to prevent and stop crime. There may be a national tend afoot, and if someone more familiar with police and crime stats wants to weigh in, that would be welcome. It’s all possible that police are doing a better or different job in how they categorize gang crime.

One reason I was hoping we’d have a discussion in front of the council is to get some context. Lakewood’s violent crime rate in 2008 was higher than it was in places like Puyallup and Federal Way, for example, and the council really needs to talk about this when we’re formulating our budget (The good news for my loyal readers, both of you, is that there will be more numbers to come as I look at crime trends in other cities)

My main point in this exercise was to show that crime is an important issue in Lakewood, not just intuitively, but by the numbers.

Sam said…

I actually think I can shed a bit of context into this discussion.

There’s a couple points you’re missing in your analysis on the crime numbers that skew the results. I’ll deal with Gang Activity first: You state that Gang Related Arrests are higher this year than the past 5 years, and this is true, but it doesn’t necessarily correlate that Gang Related activity is increasing. There is something very different this year in Lakewood that could explain the sharp increase in arrests – our new Gang Unit, started this Spring, which by all accounts is kicking ass and taking names at a pretty darn good rate and is focusing specifically on Gang issues. In fact, the drop in property crimes (especially car thefts) could indicate that Gang Activity is actually down this year, though without complete data (contacts, drug crimes, etc) this is all just speculation. We also shouldn’t be surprised that Gang Arrests are peaking in Summertime, because nationally all areas see a Summertime increase in Gangs due to school being out.

As far as Violent Crimes go, unfortunately Domestic Violence is up nationwide, due in no small part to the struggling economy with people losing jobs and savings and just generally losing control of their lives in ways beyond their control. There is an observed historical trend that when layoffs increase in an area, Domestic Violence follows; it’d be nice if there was more we could do to prevent this from happening, but it’s just an ugly reality that’s happened before and will happen again during the next recession.

Hope this helps a bit; numbers are invaluable, but without context don’t really mean a whole lot.

1:36 AM

TheDeanOfMen said…

All the more reason to organize as neighbors to know what is normal in your neighborhood and show solidarity against gang activity and all crime in general. Work with the police, no matter what you think of their driving skills, to get crime off the streets of Lakewood or UP or Steilacoom or Dupont or wherever you live. It is our responsibility as citizens to make our communities safe. Sitting back and complaining about the police or crying about what the “government” is doing is the wrong answer. The question is, “What are you doing to make your neighborhood a safer place!” until that happens nothing will change.

11:59 AM

Rick said…

MR. Neary, it is important to note that while the numbers do show a significant rise in gang arrest it does not directly relate to increase in gang activity. It may simply be an increase in arrest generated by the new Gang Task Force set up LPD. According to information presented to PSAC the Gang unit has made a difference in identifying gang related incidents and arresting gang related individuals. Just something to think about.

1:44 PM

Walter said…

Thanks to everyone for the comments below. The numbers are not as important as what the council should be doing in terms of policy and budget. So I’m hearing there is support for continuing the gang unit, and that’s a useful piece of information. (that may seem silly, but I’ve had people tell me with a very straight face that if crime is decreasing we should spend less on police)

Anyway, keep the comments coming. I hope there’s lots more numbers, discussion and context.

2:58 PM

Walter said…

Oh, and I forgot to add, I’ve asked for numbers about domestic violence so we can see those statistics. DV is always horrible, but if it’s a growing problem, the council needs to know that as we enter budget deliberations.

2:59 PM

David Anderson said…

Google “Gambling & Domestic Violence” and you’ll find they are linked. Lakewood has gambling and an apparent increase in DV, thus a serious inquiry by the council of the police department’s DV investigations of such links is past due. Sources are cited for the following stats at the googled-site.
1. 25-50% of spouces of compulsive gamblers have been abused.
2. Survey of 144 spouses of compulsive gamblers found 50% were physically and verbally abused by souse and 12 % had attempted suicide.
3. Emergency room study showed odds ratio of intimate partner violence increased 10.5 times when partner was problem gambler.
4. Child neglect is a form of domestic violence. In Indiana 72 children were found abandoned in casino premises in 14 month period.
5. In Mississippi domestic violence centers reported 300% increase in requests for help after casinos opened.
6. Nebraska medical school study found problem gambling as much a risk for domestic violence as alcohol abuse.

7:29 PM

TheDeanOfMen said…

Then by all means PUNISH the persons committing the crime DO NOT blame “the devil”! DO NOT punish LEGALLY operating businesses. Saying Gambling is the cause of crime is the equvalent of saying “The devil made me do it”. Please that is the crap. We have a society of “HUG A THUG” instead of punishing the criminal for the crime comitted! If you want put LEGALLY operating casinos out of business because of DV then you should put gas stations out of business because of car crashes. It is the same principal. I’m wondering when the people of this city, state and yes nation will get a clue and realize that crime is a choice and people need to be held accountable and take personal responsibility for a personal choice of commiting that crime. Quit blaming things like LEGALLY operating BUSINESSES or even other things like guns. I’m sorry about this post. The devil made me do it! LOL!

12:37 PM

David Anderson said…

Take a deep breath and settle down DOM. Neary said he gave a rip about causes of DV. Give him a chance to do his job.

2:54 PM

WAGrandma said…

I live in Lakewood near McChord AFB and the crime here is bad. Lots of gang activity and shootings and it seems to be going up. Even DV in my area and it seems everyone is afraid to call the police or they know they won’t show up or they are so slow that there is no use in calling because it will be over by the time they get here. If they cut down the police or the gang unit in Lakewood that would be the worst thing they could do and I pray that does not happen. This is something the people in Lakewood need to know is happening and we are not informed. I would not know if I did not come across you on Twitter by doing a search. We need all that we have and more to be honest.

2:51 PM

Space Type Retail Floors 1 Year Built 1961 Cap Rate 0.00 Price $ 1,750,000

]]> http://www.savelakewood.com/blog/2009/11/happy-days-for-sale/feed/ 0 http://www.savelakewood.com/blog/2009/11/ballot-box-gamble/ http://www.savelakewood.com/blog/2009/11/ballot-box-gamble/#comments Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:02:14 +0000 admin http://www.savelakewood.com/blog/?p=137 Ballot-box gamble the Monitor’s Editorial Board from the October 3, 2008 edition

Since 2004, voters have said ‘no’ to casino expansion. Now it’s time to roll back legalized gambling.

Again this election cycle, citizens will decide whether to introduce or expand casino-style gambling in their states. Casino resorts in Maine and Ohio? Slot machines – 15,000 of them – in Maryland? Round-the-clock gambling in Colorado? Backers promise a painless revenue stream for states. It’s anything but.

A group of citizens in Lakewood, Wash., knows this only too well. They’ve collected enough signatures for a local ballot measure to ban “minicasinos” in their community, just south of Tacoma. A successful voter backlash would not just stop the expansion of legalized gambling there, but actually close four card rooms – a first in the state, and perhaps the nation.

The city warns that closing the establishments will cost $2.8 million in lost revenue, hurt social services for the poor, and essentially end neighborhood policing. But the ban’s backers have come to the conclusion that the costs of legalized gambling – including gambling addiction, broken families, lost jobs, and drug abuse – aren’t worth the revenues.

That realization has been steadily growing among voters. Starting with the last presidential election, voters in 10 states have said “no” to the introduction or expansion of casinos. Three governors have failed at efforts to push casinos or “ra-cinos” (a race track/casino combination) through their legislatures.

Americans appear to be nearing a saturation point with legalized gambling (48 states allow it; Americans wager about $1 trillion a year on it). But are they, like those citizens in Lakewood, ready to roll back a practice that trusts success in life to chance and that bases state revenues on victimization?

A 2007 report by the Pew Research Center hints they may be. Fewer people now than in 1989 say they enjoy betting (23 percent versus 34 percent). More people believe gambling has a “negative impact” on their communities than those who think it’s positive (42 percent versus 34 percent). And 70 percent believe legalized gambling pushes people beyond what they can afford.

They’re right. The lion’s share of gambling revenue – from lotteries to casinos – comes from households earning less than $50,000. Bettors with incomes of less than $10,000 spend almost three times as much on gambling as those with incomes greater than $50,000. A bipartisan study that looked at the gambling explosion in the 1990s found about 3 million problem and pathological gamblers, with 15 million more at risk.

When the total cost of legalized gambling is considered – crime, bankruptcy, suicide, regulation of the industry, etc. – it outweighs the benefit by a ratio of 3 to 1, according to research by Earl Grinols, an expert in gambling economics.

The US has been through two gambling waves before this tsunami – one after the Revolutionary War, the other after the Civil War. By the turn of the 20th century, states criminalized the practice for its inherent corruption and greed.

Perhaps as Americans watch the results of the subprime mortgage crisis unfold, they will more clearly realize gambling’s folly of trying to get something for nothing.

On Nov. 4, voters should again reject casino expansion, and next election, may more communities put up ballot measures like Lakewood’s.

Letter: Clear Choice Lakewood

One of the questions posed the candidates at the forum, hosted by the Lakewood Chamber that has been so outspoken in support of gambling, was “Should gaming be banned in Lakewood?” Brandstetter was the only one who voted yes. Connie, his opponent for postion 2, voted no.

It is interesting that the question had been reframed from use of the word gambling to the supposedly more innocuous gaming, as if the affects of convenience casinos upon a community were hardly different than a casual game of Scrabble among friends.

Ironically perhaps, another of the questions and accompanying picture was Does Lakewood have a good image in our region? Mary Moss votes yes, Shiley waffles, Mike votes no, you cannot read Connie’s sign, Sam votes no, Jason waffles, and Richardson votes yes. Richardson’s position as Mayor requires him to vote yes to avoid self-incrimination of his leadership. That every other candidate, with the exception of Mary Moss, votes either no or unsure, raises an additional question, Why? Could it be that the only jurisdiction in the county that has casinos, with a significant rise in domestic violence and gang activity, is therefore suspect with regards its image? But with the exception of Brandstetter, this current slate of council candidates fails to connect the dots.

SaveLakewood supported Brandstetter against Coleman-Lacadie in the Primary and he outpolled her thanks to those who voted their conscience of community over the economy. He deserves your vote again.

To boost their economies, state officials should be discouraging gambling, not trying to expand it.

Editorial Board

The Christian Science Monitor

September 29, 2009

Here’s a thought experiment worth pondering as the US recovers from recession.

What if all the states with legalized gambling had outlawed it last year and asked gamblers to instead put their money into savings, job retraining, paying off debts, or buying goods from local merchants?

Alas, states didn’t even consider that productive route for disposable personal income, which would have helped revive the economy faster.

In fact, as state coffers have shrunk – in part because of less tax revenue from gambling – many states have tried to increase the opportunities and enticements for gambling.

In Ohio, for instance, voters are being asked to change the constitution to allow casinos. Illinois wants to give free drinks to riverboat gamblers. New Jersey has lifted a ban on smoking in bars with gambling machines.

Like the gambling addicts they help enable, many states are in denial about this perverse dependence on a fickle revenue source that, as studies show, costs more in social problems than the money it brings in.

And they do so despite estimates that the “market” for gambling is saturated in many areas with more states competing against one another for a limited number of gambling dollars.

Legalized gambling, especially a state lottery, is a zero-sum sport. It simply transfers wealth largely from the poor to the statehouse. It doesn’t “create” wealth.

By further tapping the poor in this way when nearly 1 in 10 workers is jobless, states with gambling only highlight that they run a “reverse welfare” program. And Congress doesn’t help by giving tax breaks for gambling technologies.

To balance budgets, states must not unbalance society with games of chance. They can do it the old-­fashioned way by trimming spending or hiking taxes.

Leave luck out of it.

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.”

A second way to help, if you do not have the time or perhaps physical ability to go door-to-door, is to contribute financially.  Each newsletter runs right around three-hundred dollars to print – and more of course as our numbers of distributors increase.  Donations may be sent to SaveLakewood Chairman David Anderson, 14506 Portland Ave. SW, Lakewood, WA 98498.

Thank you for your response and for being one of those described in the following.

They chose to act when others stood by making sacrifices that were worthwhile and noble.  Quite simply, they seemed to be driven and sustained by higher ideals. Courage, by Gordon Brown

And finally, we encourage you to send us the emails of those within your circle of influence so that they can be added to the over 200 currently receiving updates on this campaign.