Sean C. Morgan
Of The New Era
The hot topic was Texas Hold ‘Em at last Tuesday’s City Council meeting as council members and the public debated the pros and cons of a proposal to allow tournaments in town.
The council held the first reading of an ordinance that will permit commercial establishments to host Texas Hold ‘Em tournaments. The council will hold two more readings during its next two meetings. After the third reading, the council can adopt or deny the ordinance.
The council held an informal hearing on the ordinance Tuesday, and councilors also shared their opinions on Texas Hold ‘Em.
Chewy’s Sports Bar owner James Ashcraft presented a petition to the council with approximately 176 signatures. The council also received a couple of letters in support.
The council also received an additional petition from those opposed to the ordinance, with about 39 signatures, along with a couple of letters in opposition, one representing the members of Bethel Lutheran Church.
The council and its Public Safety Committee have been researching and considering allowing the tournaments after a request by Ashcraft last fall.
While attending many tournaments outside of Sweet Home, “I’ve never seen any incidents where police had to be called,” Patrick Thompson told the council, adding all of the tournaments he has seen have been well run.
“It’s not for a whole bunch of drunks sitting around and getting belligerent,” Catherine Moser said.
“I think you should be able to have the option if you want to,” Richard Ohmer said. “You should be able to.”
Cheri Doll told the council it’s embarrassing when she’s at tournaments elsewhere, where there are no issues with the tournaments.
“I’m from Sweet Home, but we’re not allowed to play,” she said.
She also said it would help keep visitors in Sweet Home longer.
“We don’t have a Wal-Mart, but I’m not embarrassed to go to Wal-Mart and say I’m from Sweet Home and we don’t have a Wal-Mart,” Dolores Wyckoff said.
Debie Rowley said she opposes public tournaments, arguing that people can run tournaments and play Texas Hold ‘Em in their homes. She described how she worked at a Seven-Eleven store and watched people bringing their children into the store without socks, buying food with food stamps and spending $50 on lottery tickets.
“We have enough here,” she said. “We don’t need any more.”
Peggy Honeywell was concerned that businesses running tournaments would not pay the full cost of the background investigations that are part of their licensing fee. She said she doesn’t want to “subsidize” the businesses if the actual cost of the investigation is higher than the $200 fee set by the proposed ordinance.
If this is “such a wonderful thing, why do we have so many empty buildings?” Honeywell asked. “I think of this as being a downgrade for our community.”
It is immoral, she said, and “that’s how I form most of my decisions, a moral judgment.”
“There’s no evidence that this is the kind of game that ruins communities,” Councilor Jim Bean said Police departments in other communities have not reported any incidents connected to Texas Hold ‘Em tournaments.
“When dealing with this issue, we didn’t find it to be a morality issue,” Bean said. It’s a chance for a businessman to improve his business.
Bean serves on the Public Safety Committee, which guided the drafting of the proposed ordinance.
Mayor Craig Fentiman said he has a problem telling other people how to live their lives.
He also explained that he is allowed to go to a bowling tournament and pay a $200 entry fee in the hopes of winning a $1,000 to $2,000 prize.
“I see no difference,” Fentiman said. It’s like bunco or bingo tournaments too.
“Quite honestly, I understand it requires a great deal of skill,” Fentiman said.
“It’s all choice, a matter of choice,” Councilor Bob McIntire said. “Some of us gamble. Some of us don’t.”
But some say, “I don’t do it, so why should you?” he explained. “I think it’s a lot of malarkey. If you don’t want to gamble, don’t. You cannot legislate morality.”
“Child molesters,” Honeywell said. “That’s a choice (too).”
Wyckoff pointed out that the state also does not pay for programs for those addicted to bowling or bunco, but it does for gambling. She argued that those games can’t be compared to gambling such as Texas Hold ‘Em.
“We’re talking about a tournament,” Fentiman said. The cards may give it the stigma of gambling, but “a tournament is a tournament.”
“I’m not stopping anyone from gambling,” Honeywell said. “They can do it all they want as long as money isn’t involved.
“I don’t want to put my morals on everyone, but there has to be a line. Once you put money into the equation, it’s no longer the fun, innocent thing.”
“It’s the responsibility of the person to spend their money wisely,” Moser said.
“I’m struck by the thought that because we can do something we ought to do something,” Councilor Rich Rowley said.
The council should consider the concept of rising tides lifting all boats here, whether one is for or against the ordinance on moral or personal grounds, Rowley said.
“Consider the character of the town,” Rowley said. “We are inundated with data that gambling is an addictive behavior.”
He referred to one person from an Albany Democrat-Herald article who wears diapers so he or she does not need to get up to use the restroom while playing state lottery machines. He asked whether that benefits or detracts from the community.
“I’m concerned that we’re being asked to allow behavior that delivers little benefit to the community,” Rowley said. The benefit goes to a business owner.
When a gambler spends his money irresponsibly and cannot feed his family, then the community ends up subsidizing his family through the state, Rowley said, allowing the gambler to spend money irresponsibly.
Just because people can gamble in other ways, such as the lottery, in the community does not mean the city should allow other forms, he said. It comes down to the character of the community. “It’s an activity that isn’t necessarily conducive to the family interest.” Allowing it would be a “degradation of life.”
Referring to Doll’s comment, “I’m sorry,” Rowley said. “I’m proud you can’t do this in Sweet Home.
“I do not believe it is a good idea for the city. I do not believe it will add to the moral character of the children we bring up.”
Present at the meeting were councilors McIntire, Eric Markell, Jim Gourley, Bean, Rowley, Scott McKee Jr. and Fentiman. The next City Council meeting will be May 22 in the City Hall Annex, behind City Hall.