Sean C. Morgan
Of The New Era
Sweet Home City Councilor Rich Rowley raised a list of concerns at the May 22 City Council meeting, about the proposal to allow local businesses to hold Texas Hold ‘Em tournaments, during the second reading of the ordinance.
Rowley has opposed the ordinance during ongoing discussions among the councilors.
He stated that, at the previous council meeting, testimony that Albany allows Texas Hold ‘Em was incorrect. Albany rejected a proposal to allow it.
“I’m concerned that this fact was not pointed out when the incorrect testimony was given, and it suggests that the committee did not research why our neighboring community chose not to impose this activity on its citizens. It seems a prudent thing to have done prior to proposing the ordinance for adoption here, and it is something that I would appreciate being looked into so the information can be presented at our next council meeting.”
Further, Rowley said, the proposed ordinance describes the procedure for appeals as high as the City Council in connection with the ordinance, but those challenges can continue on into the court system.
Once it passes the council the court system, “it’s the letter of the law, not the intent of the law, that becomes the guiding principle,” he said. “Therefore it’s important that all possible legal interpretations of this ordinance be considered and a determination made if they are allowed or if further changes are needed to disallow them.”
Among observations about the ordinance, Rowley said, “the ordinance is written to allow tournaments seven days a week between the hours of 10 a.m. and 2 p.m.
“This seems to be a gross allowance for something we are so carefully calling a tournament,” he said. “We should consider limiting this to one per month or something more in line with what we would consider a tournament to be. We also talked about limiting a player’s losses to $100 in a 24-hour period, but in those daily tournament scenarios we allow an unlucky player to potentially lose $36,500 a year. It’s no small chunk of change.
“This also suggests that it would be prudent to reduce the number of tournaments allowed.”
After the ordinance is approved, it is likely two or three more establishments will obtain a license and start running tournaments, Rowley said. “This means we could have four tournaments in any given day. Fruther, there will be commensurate competitive advertising, hawking the values of one tournament over another. While I do not see that we can stop the competitive tournaments, by reducing the frequency that a business can hold them, we will cut down on the frequency that our citizens have to endure this situation.”
The ordinance describes in detail how the game is played and betting performed, he said. It does not say how many tournaments a single establishment might have at any given time.
“As I recall it, there is no way to prevent two or more tournaments in a single establishment and at the same time,” Rowley said. “Nor is there a way to prevent an establishment from running one tournament in the morning and another in the afternoon. Continuing this thought, consider the limit placed on a player’s maximum buy-in for a 24-hour period.
“The ordinance ties a limit to a tournament, therefore there is nothing preventing a player from losing one tournament and moving across the room and buying into another tournament. This loophole needs to be closed.”
The ordinance does not address the means by which players buy in, Rowley said. If players buy in with credit cards, “it facilitates the gambling addict or irresponsible parent in spending money they do not have. While a cash requirement wouldn’t stop this, it would inhibit it since conversion of credit to cash is limited by the lending institution. It would also inhibit someone from stealing and using someone else’s credit card to fund their habit.”
The ordinance also restricts the taking of any funds from the tournament by the owner or the person holding the tournament, assuming the law is obeyed, Rowley said.
This leaves no financial incentive for anyone other than the owner of the establishment to hold the tournament, he said. “The comment about a private party being licensed to run tournaments for establishments seems unnecessary since no one will do this for free.”
Since the owner does not receive funds from players, “is there even a reason to allow for the possibility that someone other than the business owner would do this?”
“Finally and most importantly, this ordinance contains a lot of language about restrictions on the ways that owners could set things up to get part of the money paid into the tournament,” Rowley said. “It has been mentioned several times by committee members that our police would be able to enforce this ordinance. I believe that all of us would agree that the only way the terms of this ordinance will be carried out is if they are enforced. This means that more will be required than infrequent drive-bys or walkthrough.
“This ordinance creates a financial incentive to hide money going through by under-the-table means, therefore it requires proper enforcement to ensure it is adhered to.
“I am concerned that with our not having adequate police bandwidth to properly regulate traffic, we are adding additional requirements on our police without also giving them additional budget dollars to do this enforcement. Without funding, I question the ability of our Police Department to enforce this ordinance.”
Police Chief Bob Buford did not attend the council meeting last week. Rowley said he wanted to ask him, “can our Police Department enforce the requirements of this ordinance without sacrificing the current levels of enforcement they provide? And if not, can we get an estimate of the additional budget dollars that would be needed in order to enforce this ordinance?”
Several councilors briefly responded to Rowley’s comments.
Councilor Bob McIntire said he didn’t know about Albany, but the question is whether it would benefit Sweet Home. He thinks it will.
Consideration was given to communities that did allow the tournaments, Rowley said. Communities that did not also are due consideration.
On the enforcement side, as stated in the council’s previous meeting, Councilor Jim Bean said, enforcement issues are minimal in other communities that do permit Texas Hold ‘Em tournaments.
Councilor Eric Markell, who is a Coburg police officer, said his department has yet to respond to a single incident at the hall where the tournaments are held in Coburg. Officers do stop by there.
James Ashcraft, of Chewy’s Sports Bar, told the council the reason it doesn’t and won’t hear the scenarios Rowley described is because “it takes a lot to run a tournament.”
Tournaments run three and a half to four hours with eight or nine tables, he said. “You have a long day.”
“I have never seen a problem other than someone getting mad at themselves,” Dave Holley said. This isn’t the same as a back room set aside for poker all day long.
Holley said he would oppose something like that, and Rowley would have a valid concern if this were going on every day of the week.
Regarding enforcement of the ordinance, the city has an ordinance regulating second-hand stores, Bean said, but that doesn’t mean the police can stand at the door of that shop 24 hours a day, seven days a week to make sure the requirements of the ordinance are upheld.
Laws are able to function because people choose to comply with them, Mayor Craig Fentiman said. Insurance is required for automobile drivers. Most will comply with the law, and a few will not.
“This is not going to cause a lot of problems,” Holley said. “If it does cause a problem, it’s by ordinance, and it can be easily controlled by the City Council. I think it’s kind of much ado about nothing.”
“We’re drafting an ordinance that contains language with exhaustive lists of things that cannot be done and people that cannot participate,” Rowley said.
“That requires enforcement. If you’re not going to enforce it, strike it (the requirements) because you’re going to have the same effect. If you’re going to have the language in there, then provide the means to enforce it.”
The council held the second reading of the ordinance at the May 22 meeting and will hold the third at its June 12 meeting. After the third reading, the council can adopt the proposed ordinance.