Editor:
I admit that I am a bit perplexed with how to begin this letter, so I think I will start and end it the same way.
I think Rich Rowley is a decent councilman.
However, and this is a big however, I think he is quite far afield in his comments regarding what he calls the “social gambling” issue.
For those of you that don’t know what the issue is, it is a proposal being considered by the council to allow businesses or individuals to hold Texas Hold-em tournaments in the city.
Mr. Rowley might be surprised to learn that several clubs and organizations already use such tournaments as fund-raising events for their groups. He may also be surprised to know who many of the individuals are who participate in these tournaments on a regular basis.
I am confused by some of the statements made in his letter, i.e., “legalize gambling in our town.” Look around you, Mr. Rowley, the state of Oregon is one of the biggest promoters of gambling in the entire United States.
It has become one of the bedrocks of our state budget. Does that necessarily make it right? Of course not, but it makes the moral high ground you seem to want to take a little less believable.
A look through our city budget will show $55,000 in state revenue sharing, perhaps from an immoral source. It will also show cigarette tax and liquor tax revenue totaling more than $95,000, again perhaps money contributed by people participating in an immoral activity.
I would venture to say that the people in our community will spend at least a hundredfold more money on the state’s form of gambling than they will ever spend on entries into Texas Hold-em tournaments.
While I was still working, I had a colleague that served many years on a city council in a nearby city. He would never vote for the approval of a liquor license. Safeway could apply, and he would still vote no as he did not agree with the idea of anyone drinking. He thought it was his moral obligation to vote his belief, no matter what the law said.
I said to him then, as I say to you now, do what you think fits your views; but don’t say you are taking the “moral ground” as this implies that anyone who disagrees with you is immoral.
I am a smoker, but I don’t think I am immoral. I like to play Texas Hold-em but don’t think I am immoral.
I think the council should work out a set of regulations governing the holding of the tournaments and limiting the playing to tournaments only; but that doesn’t make me immoral.
What it does make me is someone that believes a business should be given a chance to prove itself with an activity that a fairly large number of people enjoy before being rejected with a supposed regulation of morality.
As to regulations, I think instead of being worried about whether a participant has a beer, a better way would be to start no tournament after 2 p.m. and to keep the playing area away from the rest of the customers with some type of barrier, such as rope or tape.
Maybe what we have is a fundamental disagreement on what a councilor’s role should be. The quality of life you speak of could also be well served by seeing that citizens have water and sewer rates they can afford, by seeing that sound decisions are made in spending tax money and helping to control the ever-rising property tax rates, by seeing that our Police Department has the proper manpower and tools to combat the growing property crimes and meth problems that plague our city.
I don’t need a councilor to protect me from myself. I need one to spend his time doing the aforementioned things.
I said I would end this as I started it, and I will. I think Mr. Rowley is a decent councilman, but I think he needs to get off his soapbox and help work out a solution.
I don’t think one can talk out of the conservative right side of his mouth about morality and reach out with his liberal left hand to take in money generated by “immoral activities.”
Dave Holley
Sweet Home