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.

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