Letter (and response): Reaction to failed gambling bill
Posted by · February 4, 2010
Had a recent legislative bill passed, the prospects of gambling expansion state-wide were likely. This last November members of the Lakewood council and city staff attended the regional meeting of the Association of Washington Cities and anticipated the latter’s support of “local control over gambling” at the legislature. But House Bill 2873 wasn’t about Lakewood gaining control over gambling. It was rather about giving gambling control.
I testified against this bill before the House Labor and Commerce Committee this past Wednesday. The bill had four major flaws. One was the 10-year-no-repeal rule. The bill would have tied the city’s hands while giving a free-hand to the casinos for an entire decade. A second reiterated the State Gambling Commission as having sole authority to change the scope of a gambling license. And given recent proposals for expanded gambling before that Commission, as well as intentions by representatives of the casinos to reintroduce slots, the city would have had no say in these matters. Still a third provision of the bill would have allowed existing casinos to relocate within the city.
But the fourth, and fatal, flaw was the very real potential for back-door entrance of gambling into cities state-wide that have already banned gambling, as stated at the hearing by Amy Hunter, Licensing Director for the State Gambling Commission. It is exactly for that reason that the tribes have successfully opposed similar bills the last eleven years. And they have prevailed again.
Hunter warned that passage of this so-called ‘control’ bill could easily mean out-of-control gambling expansion. We are told now that Lakewood wrote this bill. So given the damage this bill allegedly would have caused, what citizen, family and community values does this bill reflect, and why would Lakewood write it, much less support it?
David Anderson (253-988-2536)
Tillicum
City of Lakewood Communications Director Jeff Brewster (253-983-7761) responds:
After reading David Anderson’s letter about House Bill 2873, it is evident that there is some confusion on the subject. This bill was sponsored by Representative Steve Conway and supported by the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) and the City of Lakewood among others. It intended to give local governments the ability to limit and potentially reduce the number of mini-casinos within their jurisdictions. At this time, cities can either completely ban or allow mini-casinos. State law is not flexible on this matter and does not respect local control.
This issue has been discussed by the Legislature for over a decade. It impacts local governments across the state, not just Lakewood. To shape this bill, multiple stakeholders worked with Rep. Conway. While the City of Lakewood participated in the process, we were one voice of many. Unfortunately, stakeholders could not agree to key language, so this bill is effectively dead for 2010. The encouraging news is that for the first time, all those who have sparred over this legislation in the past have agreed to sit down before the 2011 session to hammer out their differences. For better or worse, changing state law often requires a large investment in time and patience. The City of Lakewood will not quit until we obtain authority to limit mini-casinos.
The “10-year no repeal rule” that Mr. Anderson objects to is not something that Lakewood suggested. Nonetheless, it seems only fair to provide a reasonable period of stability once locally elected bodies make a far reaching legislative decision. Furthermore, Lakewood has never supported the ability of mini-casinos to move wherever they want. We do not want mini-casinos in neighborhoods, our central business district, or near churches or schools. If we can freeze our existing card rooms where they are now, we can satisfy those concerns.
Lakewood leadership disagrees with Mr. Anderson that mini-casinos should be immediately banned. Nonetheless, the City believes that less is better with regard to this industry. That is why the Council has stated, and recently reaffirmed as a matter of policy, that it wants to limit gambling in Lakewood. The Council also recognizes that the outright prohibition of these legal businesses that have invested millions in private capital is not something a majority of our citizens is inclined to support.
In closing, we would like to take this opportunity to invite Mr. Anderson to discuss future gambling legislation with the City. We would like to better understand his objections to limiting gambling in Lakewood. In turn, he may be less inclined to travel to Olympia to testify against legislation overwhelmingly endorsed by Lakewood’s elected leadership. Such an outcome could be a true “win-win.”
|
Would you like to receive a daily digest of all the stories we post to The Suburban Times? If so, just fill in the simple form below and click the Subscribe to List button. Subscriptions are FREE and can be deleted at any time. Enjoy!
(Required fields are bold) |
3 Comments
February 5th, 2010 at 9:06 am
Hmmmm.Lakewood’s anti-gambling citizens need not go to Olympia to express their concerns? Thank goodness they did! Why wouldn’t they petition Olympia given that the Lakewood City Council is in complete support of gambling….except of course Mr. Brandstetter who is not in the pocket of the casinos. Just how did that “10 year no repeal rule” sneak in there under the Council’s nose and why didn’t they say something when it did? “Stray cats and dogs” to quote the President? Were they planning to play along deaf, dumb and blind until after HB 2873 passed and then express feigned surprise? Just who is it that would enjoy a “win-win” situation if HB 2873 had passed? We already know that answer: the Lakewood City Council and their pals the casinos. It would have been however a “lose-lose” situation for Lakewood’s citizens and businesses. Lakewood’s City Council claims that less is better when it comes to this industry. OK then are 3 casinos better than 4; 2 better than 3; 1 better than 2…..how about ZERO better than any. I guess this sort of logic is fine to espouse openly if you don’t have to implement it and someone is quietly handing you a bunch of easy money. In gambling it’s called a “bluff”; something in which casinos and the city council are well practiced.
February 5th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
The response by Lakewood Communications Director Jeff Brewster about why the city’s support of gambling failed, again, raises a number of questions.
1. In the interest of transparency, who were the “multiple stakeholders” that worked on this so-called ‘gambling-control’ bill? Since the casinos had a stake in the game, might they have been represented at the table and thus had influence on the outcome as they did in the Lakewood City Council 2005 elections? (TNT, 10/2/2007)
2. As “the City of Lakewood participated in the process”, who, specifically? And what, in support of honesty and open government and representation, was the “key language” these unknown stakeholders could not agree to?
3. “Lakewood has never supported the ability of mini-casinos to move wherever they want,” according to Brewster. Really? In the July 22, 2003 TNT, our Lakewood Council representative, upon the opening of the Grand Central Casino in Lakewood, remarked, “It’s a legally licensed business in the state of Washington. I don’t mind where the location is. I’m not a person who believes you can legislate morality. We do get a nice chunk of change from them, and they are good neighbors, very supportive of the community.”
4. “We do not want mini-casinos in neighborhoods, our central business district, or near churches or schools,” Brewster further claims. Why not? If they are the cash-cows they are alleged to be, why should we care what pasture they choose to feed off (sorry, ‘in’)? Why does “the City believe that less is better with regard to this industry?” Might there be some unspoken values-judgments in play here? And why are the values that drive our city unspoken? What values of Brewster and the Council actually do drive these pro-gambling bills?
5. “The Council also recognizes that the outright prohibition of these legal businesses that have invested millions in private capital is not something a majority of our citizens is inclined to support,” states Brewster. Says who? When has the Council since incorporation ever, ever, polled the audience on this issue? “As policy makers we would be foolish to do anything without consulting the public. This has to do with good government,” said yet another of our Lakewood council. No, the issue was not gambling, it was street-ends, September 25, 2007. Yet on gambling, when asked why his fellow council members, and the city’s first manager, twice refused to put the gambling issue before the public in the City’s quarterly newsletter in order to survey public opinion on gambling, the Lakewood councilman interviewed said, “I don’t think they want to know, frankly” (American Community Journal, Vol.2, No.01, February, 2003, p.2; Ed Kane).
6. There is no comment by Brewster,representing city leadership, as to the warning of Amy Hunter, Gambling Commission Licensing Director, before the House Labor and Commerce Committee. Like the bills preceding it, HB 1477 and SB 5558 in 2007, this current effort by Lakewood would very likely have meant the expansion of gambling state-wide. Lakewood is ok with that? “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” (January 30, 2007, TNT, B1).
Thank you, Mr. Brewster, for the invitation to discuss future gambling legislation. How big a room do you have, as there are 7,780 people who may like to attend that discussion as well? These Lakewood citizens that voted to ban gambling in the city’s first initiative would like to know the answers to these questions posed above as to why their elected representatives continue to be non-representative of them on this issue.
Even as “the City of Lakewood will not quit until we obtain authority to limit mini-casinos,” declared Brewster, neither will we quit in our efforts to rid the city of this predatory industry.
The distance from here to Olympia to testify against such bills is short compared to the ever-widening gulf that separates Lakewood from its alleged leadership.
Community Matters
David Anderson
988-2536
billsboathouse@qwestoffice.net
February 6th, 2010 at 1:34 am
Brewster, always willing to ‘clarify’, stated: “…it is evident that there is some confusion on the subject.” His clarification merely raises more questions: Perhaps we can begin by asking: Who was the actual author of HB 2873?
Brewster says, “The City of Lakewood will not quit until we obtain authority to limit mini-casinos.” Since only the council can establish policy, how can Brewster speak with integrity on an issue about which the council has agreed that even it doesn’t “have unanimity amongst ourselves yet”?
Brewster writes, “Lakewood leadership disagrees with Mr. Anderson that mini-casinos should be immediately banned.” How can Brewster make this remark when the council has agreed that it doesn’t “have unanimity amongst ourselves yet”?
Brewster writes, “… we would like to take this opportunity to invite Mr. Anderson to discuss future gambling legislation with the City.” Who is “we”? Obviously, considering council’s lack of unanimity on the subject, Brewster can not speak with integrity for the city council, so for whom is he speaking?
Brewster speaks of ‘fairness’, then he states, “We would like to better understand his objections to limiting gambling in Lakewood.” In all fairness, hasn’t Mr. Anderson made his objections abundantly clear to those who are willing to grasp his already clearly stated objections? The legislature seems to understand his stated position; why won’t Brewster?
In speaking of Mr. Anderson’s willingness to defend his position, Brewster states, “… he may be less inclined to travel to Olympia to testify against legislation overwhelmingly endorsed by Lakewood’s elected leadership.” It is readily apparent that Brewster is, again, speaking for a council which doesn’t “have unanimity amongst ourselves yet”! His zeal, perhaps, oversteps his authority to speak about city policy on behalf of the yet undecided council which has not yet codified its policy relating to HB 2873, let alone on the broader issue of gambling in Lakewood.
Brewster says, “We do not want mini-casinos in neighborhoods, our central business district, or near churches or schools.” His ‘clarification’ requires that one ask the reasoned question, “Why not? If gambling is just another legitimate business trying to make a go of it in Lakewood, why not allow them to set up business in any part of Lakewood just as would any other legitimate business concern? THIS is the one question that Brewster really needs to answer!
Brewster concerns himself with ‘fairness’. In fairness to all concerned, I suggest that the city host a series of public meetings on gambling in Lakewood using the council chambers as the venue much as it did for the discussion of street ends.