Casinos in Lakewood Washington

Ethical Impact & Values

According to the July 2007 issue of “Lakewood Connections” – the city’s publication of happenings throughout our community – City Manager Andrew Neiditz quoted the Army’s top officer of a few years ago as saying “Our values are sacrosanct, but everything else is on the table.” Neiditz then stated, “Our citizens expect and deserve a city government that is ‘value-driven.’”

So what values does gambling support?

“Consider the irony: Here is the government, essentially breaking the. . .social contract – the agreement by which the people submit to being governed, in trust that those who govern them will act in their benefit. Instead, the government is actively seeking to legitimize a vice that destroys people and wrecks homes. For government to encourage – and even profit by – such self-destructive behavior is, as Kelly puts it, ‘a profound betrayal of every value there ever was’.”^ⁱ

Assuming that the values to which Neiditz refers would include intellectual honesty and integrity, how can the following be explained?

Was the study ever done?

Recent Tacoma News Tribune editorial, column & articles (appendix) call Lakewood ‘addicted’ (Sept. 24, 2007, B5); and moratoriums ”deceptive” (Sept.24); “unenforceable”(October 3, B1); “something of a con game” (Sept.24); and “illegal” (Sept.18, B1).

The ineffectiveness of the City Council’s moratorium history (9 moratoriums over 9 years, not counting the 10^th moratorium imposed October 1, 2007) has earned Lakewood the dubious title of the “nontribal gambling capitol of the state.”^ⁱⁱ

Complete sets are available of the documents instituting gambling expansion moratoriums in the City of Lakewood, obtained via two public disclosure requests, but here is a summary:

Note: As moratoriums are effective for six-months at a time, 9 moratoriums over 9 years mean half-the-time there were no moratoriums at all. The 2^nd Public Disclosure Request was to confirm that such gaps existed. Copies of these requests are included in the appendix.

Years in which moratoriums were declared: 9 (1998-2007)

# of public hearings: 11 (by council); 2 by Planning Advisory Board (PAB)

# of six-month moratoriums: 6

# of moratorium extensions: 3

# of resolutions: 6

# of ordinances: 5

# times that “the City needs further study”: 12 (in each one of the 9 moratoriums over 9 years)

Note: The purpose of each of the nine moratoriums imposed by the City of Lakewood over the last nine years is stated, in part “to consider properly and carefully all of the factors involved in determining the appropriate role of gambling in the City” - phrasing taken from Lakewood City Council Ordinance 283, July 29, 2002 but similar wording is to be found in each of the twelve documents. Similar too to each ordinance/resolution is not only this purpose “to study”, but the need for more time to do it:

“the need to study the City’s position is heightened” (1998);
“the City is not yet completed with its study of issues and questions relating to the location of gambling activities within the City” (1999);
“the City needs time to consider properly and carefully all of the factors involved in determining the appropriate role of gambling in the City” (2002);
“additional study (is needed) of the issues and consequences involved in such a moratorium” (2005);
“The council is awaiting a gambling impact study by the city’s planning advisory board, which says it needs more time (September, 2007)”^ⁱⁱⁱ
“Councilman Pad Finnigan said the council doesn’t have all the facts that a pending gambling impact study would provide. He said the city shouldn’t risk a premature decision (October, 2007)”^{^iv}

# times “study” should be that of staff/PAB: 4 (1^st time mentioned is January 17, 2006)

# times PAB held hearings on gambling: 2 (April 5, 2006; July 25, 2007)

Note: As to why the PAB had only just recently commenced its gambling study - July, 2007 - “Dave Bugher, city community development director and assistant city manager, said the board was busy examining other more pressing issues, such as zoning for state work release facilities.”^{^v} But as noted above, this responsibility had been mentioned in gambling moratorium ordinances/resolutions as belonging to city staff/Planning Advisory Board four times; and the board had held its own public hearing on gambling on April 5, 2006 at which time 11 pages of research were presented by David Anderson to PAB members covering gambling’s social costs to youth, their families, and senior citizens; and gambling’s cost to a community in terms of crime and its economic burden (copy available).

# times Counsel received legal updates: 7

Note: The first time case law update was reportedly received by the Council was on January 17, 2006. That should have meant that the Council was informed on the results of two state court cases (City of Edmonds, 2003; and Paradise Bowl, Pierce County, 2004) successfully banning gambling, both decisions of which hinged on RCW 9.46.295 (1974) which legalized gambling in counties but allows counties and cities to prohibit at any time such activity within their respective jurisdictions – without any recouping of investment; and no phasing-out requirement.^{^vi}

What was the study to entail?

“The City needs time to consider properly and carefully all of the factors involved in determining the appropriate role of gambling in the City” (phrasing is taken from Lakewood City Council Ordinance 283, July 29, 2002 but similar wording is to be found in each of the twelve documents imposing moratoriums on gambling expansion by way of ordinances or resolutions from 1998 to the present).

“All of the factors involved” would legitimately include social, legal, financial and ethical matters. To “consider properly and carefully” would suggest a thorough research in each of these areas – similar to the work done with regards to Sexually Oriented Businesses (SOBs) in Lakewood.

Ordinance #358 (November, 2004) consists of 22 pages that include references to statistics nation-wide concerning the harmful secondary effects of SOB’s upon communities; findings of a variety of stakeholders including “representatives from businesses, educational institutions, community leaders, and representatives from the adult entertainment industry”; research and study by the Planning Advisory Board citing case law and neighboring city’s ordinances affecting adult entertainment facilities; and the resulting action, based on this research, found that “an improperly operated SOB can constitute a public or moral nuisance.”

This research was conducted in keeping with Lakewood’s purpose “to protect, foster and support the goals and ideals of schools, religious and public service organizations serving the Lakewood community.”

But to-date, with regards gambling, this process has only now begun with a July, 2007 presentation by Bugher to the Planning Advisory Board. Up until then, after nine years; nine moratoriums; 12 promises to study; as many requests for more time; six casinos; and 90 card tables, not only does Lakewood lead the state as the nontribal gambling capitol, but there has been no study as promised; no committees appointed that a court challenge could support; no stakeholder invitations to the table; and no reference to statistics – social, legal, financial, or ethical; and no reference to such studies that exist both local and national that clearly establish the harmful consequences of gambling’s presence, as much or more for gambling as SOB’s.