Sean C. Morgan
The Sweet Home City Council declined to allow social gambling at commercial establishments last week.
Frank Chau, owner of T&M Pizza, had asked the council to change its ordinance to permit social gambling. He, and potentially other businesses, would open up an area for gambling. The businesses would make money from the gambling through the sale of food and drinks.
Under Oregon statutes, cities can choose to allow social gambling through their ordinances. Without an ordinance, social gambling is prohibited.
Religious, civic and fraternal organizations may host gambling events in Sweet Home, and a game called “pan” also is permitted.
Five councilors opposed allowing social gambling. Two were interested in an alternative that would allow businesses to go through a permit process for individual tournaments.
“I’m going to stick with what I had before on this,” Councilor Bob McIntire said. “I really can’t see opening our town up to social gambling. I don’t think it’s good for our city. I don’t think it’s good for our police department, for taking on extra work, which I know it will be.”
“I have found, from people I talked with, that they don’t favor this and don’t see the benefit to the community,” Councilor Jim Bean said. “The potential for unnecessary responses from the police and what other developments might occur as a result of this gaming, I don’t think we need it.”
If the people think social gambling should be allowed, they can visit Lincoln City or Grand Ronde, Bean said. They can also host events in their own homes, and to change the law, they can lobby the state legislature to change state law.
“I don’t see where it’s a benefit to our community, therefore I can’t approve of changing the ordinance,” Bean said.
“I see some social, moral and monetary issues connected with this,” Councilor Dick Hill said. After talking with Gamblers Anonymous and other cities, Hill hasn’t found many persons who would support social gambling.
“After seeing the number of calls … that the Police Department receives – and not saying that personally Mr. Chau, if you ran a social gaming event things would not go smoothly and things wouldn’t be just terrific because I think you would, I think you would be very conscientious – the only problem is that when we change the ordinance, we open it up to everybody,” Mayor Craig Fentiman said. “We can’t guarantee that everybody is going to run a smooth operation as you probably will.
“That’s my fear, and if anything, I’m guilty of erring on the side of fear for the increased call volume to the Police Department. We are looking at a shortfall definitely in the police levy, and that’s something that we have to address at this point in time.”
Councilor Tim McQueary suggested an alternative, making a minor change in the ordinance to allow persons to apply for a permit for tournaments based on their own merits.
“That way, you’d get to sample what the implications are going to be on our police force and the other things that are going to be affected by this change,” McQueary said. “You could take a small bite rather than taking a large bite.”
Councilor Jessica Coward said she liked that idea.
“I’d still disagree,” Hill said. “You’ve still got the social, moral and monetary issues.”
Bean said he didn’t see how that change would benefit the community.
Councilor Jim Gourley said he fielded 35 phone calls and talked to about 20 people about it. Of those conversations, five persons to one were against allowing social gambling.
“The feeling out there is that they don’t want this in the town,” Gourley said. “I would have to go with that feeling. I tried to stay – to take a look at it from all views.”
“It’s not so much of a gambling issue,” Chau told the council. He likened his proposal to a chess tournament or the pool tournaments that local bars and taverns host regularly.