Legal Impact

Note: The following few pages answer these frequently asked questions/assertions:

Page

• Amortization? No 6

• All-or-nothing? No 7

• Zoning? No 7-8

• Limit number? No 9

• It’s the state’s fault? No 10-11
  

>If gambling is banned in Lakewood, we will have to provide an amortization period for casinos and others to recoup investments and losses, the precedence being five years. Right?

Wrong.
While both Councilwoman Helen McGovern (July 25, 2002 – Lakewood Public Library forum on gambling) and Ron Cronk (July 25, 2007 – Planning Advisory Board public hearing on gambling) have made this statement, both are wrong.

Here’s why:

According to the successful appeal by Pierce County in banning gambling in the county specifically that of Paradise Bowl, the court ruled (2004) that RCW 9.46.295 “clearly and specifically stated that the County could ban gambling at any time. There is no guarantee in the statute that any gambling operation could recoup its investment if gambling was banned”.ⁱ

In an article entitled “State Court of Appeals Upholds Mini-Casino Ban”ⁱⁱ, the court ruled in Edmonds Shopping Center Assoc. v. City of Edmonds (2003) that “the city was preempted by state law from requiring the phasing-out of existing cardrooms, with the result that the plaintiff is immediately affected by the prohibition. The ordinance had provided, among other restrictions, that existing cardrooms would be considered a legal nonconforming use but that they would have to cease operations five years after enactment of the ordinance. The court determined that the phase-out requirement and other interim restrictions changed the scope of issued gambling licenses and were thus preempted by RCW 9.46.295.”ⁱⁱⁱ

A ban on gambling would mean the end of not only casinos but it would “also end raffle sales, bingo games, etc.” (Lakewood City Council Member Helen McGovern, Lakewood Library, July 25, 2002)

Right?
Wrong.

Again, from Pierce County’s successful ban of gambling the court also allowed the County’s exemption of charitable, nonprofit gaming as described in 9.46.0311 from the ban.^iv

Note: In the nine moratoriums (from the first in 1998 to the present, not counting the 10^th one instituted in October, 2007) seven times the Counsel purportedly received legal and/or case law updates, according to the Ordinances/Resolutions ‘preventing’ gambling expansion. The first time the city’s legal department was said to have given case law updates to the council was on January 17, 2006. If such a presentation did actually occur, that means the council should have been apprised of the two court cases noted above (Paradise & Edmonds) as they had been settled years earlier. And consequently, the myths of amortization, and that of ‘all-or-nothing’ bans, would no longer be perpetuated by the council.

>Casinos cannot be located wherever.

Right?

Wrong.

In February, 2003, Doug Richardson was the lone Lakewood City Councilman that “would have preferred establishing a ban, not because he opposes gambling, but because he sees the issue as one of local control. ‘There’s nothing preventing you from putting it directly across from the high school.’”^v

Legislature fails to pass laws granting cities local zoning control

In January, 2007, lobbyists for the Association of Washington Cities and the minicasinos combined efforts, unsuccessfully, to get House Bill 1477 and Senate Bill 5558 through the legislature. This would have frozen the number of casinos to those already open. It also would have given cities and counties, for the first time, the legal ability to decide where casinos can open. (However, this failed effort to grant zoning-capability to cities and counties was in part an attempt by the state to cut a deal with cities and counties to stop banning gambling altogether.)^vi

“Under current law, cities and counties can allow minicasinos or they can ban them. But if they allow them, they can’t limit the number, placement or the scope of gambling.

“Cities and counties could still ban casinos completely – as Tacoma, Seattle, Fircrest, Gig Harbor, Puyallup, Sumner and Pierce County have. However, if local governments don’t mind the casinos they have but don’t want more, then this could give them an option.

“Lakewood was cited as an example during legislative hearings. The city has five casinos open or in the process. It also faces consistent rumors that additional casinos are eyeing the city, rumors that fuel demands for the city to impose a ban.

“‘We’re protecting Lakewood,’” (lobbyist Tom) Dooley told the committees. ‘If people are happy with what they have, let’s preserve that.’

“Governments would have the option of creating zones where additional casinos might locate. Even within those zones, 500-foot buffers would keep casinos away from churches, schools and city halls. While no new casinos could be licensed, existing casinos around the state could relocate in limited circumstances.

“The bills also would end a legal battle in Kenmore where a longstanding casino is being forced to close. While the city was supportive of Kenmore Lanes, it did not want additional casinos. But its only option was to ban both old and new.

“What would the legislation mean to places like Tacoma that have bans? Those cities could lift their bans and determine where in the city casinos could operate. But only if an existing casino were allowed by the Gambling Commission to move could it locate in places that have dropped bans.

“‘If a city opens up, it has to know it wouldn’t lead to a flood of new licenses into a jurisdiction,’” said Delores Chiechi of the Recreational Gaming Association.

“Local governments have wanted zoning authority ever since the Legislature authorized minicasinos. The industry became supportive as the number of cities and counties imposing bans increased.

“But the bills failed due to opposition to local zoning from Sen. Margarita Prentice. The Renton Democrat, who supported a freeze, once led the committee that handled gambling legislation and now is chairwoman of the Ways and Means Committee.

“Prentice, however, is the prime sponsor of the Senate bill, having lifted her objections to the zoning concept. She said the bill blocks expansions of commercial gambling and allows casinos to remain in locations where the public seems to tolerate them.

“The deal represents a pragmatic retreat for the minicasinos.

“The industry realizes it has little room to grow. And this gives it a chance to survive as the state and federal governments turn more gambling over to the tribes.”^vii

Cities cannot limit the number of casinos

In his July 25, 2007 presentation to the Planning Advisory Board, City of Lakewood Development Director and Assistant City Manager Dave Bugher wrote: “If a city has allowed one or more mini-casinos established within the city and it wants to prevent any more from being established, it cannot prohibit new mini-casinos while grandfathering existing ones” i.e. once in, the city cannot limit the number.

“Cities are allowed by state law to: (1) prohibit any or all gambling activities for which licenses, issued by the Washington State Gambling Commission (WSGC) are required; (2) tax certain gambling activities; and/or (2) enact as local ordinances any of the state gambling statues that, if violated, constitute a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor crime.

“The most significant authority that cities have with respect to gambling is to decide what, if any gambling activities to allow within their boundaries. A city may prohibit all gambling activity, or it may chose to allow one or more of the following gambling activities permitted by state law and regulated by the WSGC: amusement games; bingo; raffles; punch boards; pull-tabs; and social card games. There are a few gambling activities for which the WSGC does not require licenses, such as sports pools when conducted within specified statutory limitations and certain limited gambling activities conducted by nonprofit or charitable organizations for fundraising purposes; a city may not prohibit such gambling.

The WSGC does not support Lakewood’s current practice of zoning casinos into the C1 & C2 zones – under ‘amusement and recreation’. Lakewood’s attorney likewise does not believe the city’s practice could withstand a court challenge.

Meanwhile Lakewood’s zoning has so far been honored by the WSGC as a ‘partial ban.’

It’s the state’s fault, specifically the State Gambling Commission, that the city’s hands are tied.
Right?
Wrong

Then Lakewood City Manager Scott Rohlfs said (August, 2002), “ ‘If we ban them (casinos), we will be in lawsuits for the longest time. And that is not what we need right now. . . It’s the state that legalized gambling, not the City of Lakewood.”^viii

But the City of Edmonds successfully banned gambling. So did Pierce County. And Tacoma. And a total of 64 cities and 5 counties state-wide.

>Our nearest neighbors

Tacoma:

October 5, 1999 - Tacoma City Council passed Ordinance 26515 banning the establishment of any new mini-casinos, and provided for a six-year amortization period for the four already existing to expire on December 31, 2005.

Initiative 1 was the failed attempt to repeal Tacoma’s ban on minicasinos. Called ‘Associated Casino Employees for Survival’ (ACES), the campaign, if successful, would have allowed four existing casinos to stay open indefinitely. But it failed 47% yes, 53% no, resulting in their closure on September 30, 2006.

Pierce County:

Paradise Bowling Alley received a license for gambling from the State in 1999. But in July of that year, Parkland citizens complained to the county council which then held just two hearings resulting in a ban on gaming on any new applications as several other entities than Paradise had applied. (Contrast to Lakewood’s 13 public hearings; 7 moratoriums; 3 moratorium extensions; 6 resolutions; 5 ordinances; 12 statements of purpose – “to study the issue”; 7 references to having received legal updates – and all this over a nine-year period including taking nearly a four-year vacation from council-initiated gambling activity.) Paradise filed suit in 2001. Pierce County lost in July, 2002 but appealed and won its lawsuit over Paradise in December, 2004 primarily on the basis of RCW 9.46.295, an ordinance “clearly and specifically at any time authorizing the elimination of gambling activities, without any allowance to recoup its investment for gambling activities which have been characterized as in the nature of a public nuisance – offensive or damaging to the community.” (The court further allowed the County’s exemption of Charitable, nonprofit gaming as described in 9.46.0311 from the ban.)^ix

State-wide

Initiative 892 (2004) was an overwhelming vote by the citizens of Washington rejecting – by nearly a 2-1 margin – the proposal of card room owners to allow slot machines in neighborhoods throughout the state. This was the second time in 10 years that voters turned away gambling initiatives. “During that campaign the Muckleshoots, who run one of the biggest casinos in the state, in Auburn, sent out a pamphlet warning that expanded gambling would increase domestic violence, theft, substance abuse and unemployment.”^x

Meanwhile , in Lakewood, nobody signs a protest letter

In April, 2003, Citizens Against Gambling Expansion (CAGE) sent a statement signed by more than 30 elected officials to the media and legislators opposing expansion of the state Lottery’s keno game entitled “Local officials oppose new state-sponsored numbers game” and, “Cities and counties don’t want ‘keno lounges’ in their jurisdiction”. No council member from Lakewood was listed as joining in the statement although the following were: Jean Burbidge, Mayor of Federal Way; Barbara Skinner, Mayor of Sumner; Barbara Gelman, Pierce County Council; Linda Kochmar, Federal Way City Council; Marilyn Owel, Gig Harbor City Council; and Mike Lonergan, Tacoma City Council, all of whom were among the more proximate-to-Lakewood officials.

Strongly worded resolution” – what was it really about?

On September 2, 2003, after warning members of the Lakewood City Council that their non-decision on gambling expansion, in spite of moratoriums, would likely mean further growth of minicasinos without zoning control, Rohlfs sent a letter to the State Gambling Commission protesting the Commission’s proposed research project concerning gambling taxes. Rohlfs feared the Commission would undermine Lakewood’s gambling tax authority thereby reducing revenue for the police department (see copy of letter in Appendix).

 

Ethical Impacts

Financial Impacts

Social Impacts

Legal Impact

More Recent History
of Gambling

Gambling Community
in Lakewood

 

What Lakewood Leaders say

Speech to City

Lakewoods Gambling Moratorium

Initiative to ban Mini Casinos

Your Opinion

Support