Kirkland City Council to reverse city-wide ban on gambling in effort to pay for annexation
The Kirkland City Council has made another policy reversal regarding potential annexation: they now plan to allow the Casino Caribbean in Kingsgate to remain open if annexed, overturning Kirkland’s 1999 ban on gambling establishments.
As if the prospect of having a 640 bed jail in Kingsgate, unincorporated King County weren’t bad enough, now the Kirkland City Council is actively lobbying Olympia to permit Kirkland to grandfather the Casino Caribbean in Kingsgate. This change in the law would allow Kirkland to annex the Potential Annexation Area and keep the card room open — in order to collect revenues from gambling.
This is a reversal of the city policy prohibiting such gambling establishments within Kirkland City limits which was enacted in 1999. The current Kirkland City Council also had opposed allowing any card rooms in Kirkland… until a few months ago. The City Council is now lobbying in favor of the Casino Caribbean.
“We don’t do card rooms in Kirkland.”
Then Kirkland mayor, Mary-Alyce Burleigh quoted at an anti- Kingsgate card room rally in 2004.
When the Kingsgate card room was being proposed in 2004, about 100 Kingsgate residents rallied against it carrying protest signs and placards. In fact, then mayor, Mary-Alyce Burleigh joined the rally and was quoted at the time by the Seattle P-I as saying, “We don’t do card rooms in Kirkland.”
It is rather shocking to hear these same elected officials now argue in favor of the card room.
Last month, the Kirkland City Council dispatched Deputy Mayor Joan McBride to Olympia to lobby legislators so that Kirkland might keep the Casino Caribbean open. Currently, Kirkland bans card rooms and would not allow the one in Kingsgate to remain open under existing law.
On February 17th the State House Commerce & Labor Committee held a hearing on HB 2162 at which Deputy Mayor McBride testified, “Mr. Chairman I wouldn’t be here if this wasn’t so deeply important to our city, I assure you.” Really? How could reversing Kirkland’s ban on gambling establishments possibly be so important to Kirkland citizens? Perhaps the Deputy Mayor misspoke and meant to say that HB 2162 was deeply important to some other interest group. Reversing the city-wide ban on gambling establishments is certainly not deeply important to Kirkland citizens.
City Council gambles with Kirkland’s future
Photo by Dustin Snipes / The Seattle Times
And lest we forget, this is also an election year. Four of the seven sitting City Council members’ seats are up for election on November 3rd. As of this writing, none of our current City Council members has announced plans to run for re-election.
Historically, the majority of the Kirkland City Council has been opposed to allowing casinos or card rooms in the City of Kirkland. On many occasions, Deputy Mayor McBride herself has publicly stated her opposition to the Casino Caribbean remaining open if annexation were to take place. It seems she, and the City Council she represents, have now changed their tune.
Why would some Kirkland City Council members change their positions against allowing gambling establishments in the City of Kirkland? Why would they now actively lobby in favor of gambling in Kirkland when they have been so outspokenly opposed to them in the past?
Some have suggested there is a simple answer to why the City Council is willing to allow gambling in Kirkland: money.
Goodbye Bedford Falls, Hello Pottersville
A bewildered George Baily wanders the streets of his home town Bedford Falls, which has been transformed into Pottersville in the film It's A Wonderful Life.
Deputy Mayor Joan McBride was invited to explain her change in position on permitting gambling establishments in the City of Kirkland. She was offered as much space here as needed to fully explain her position. She declined the offer. We welcome any explanation City Council members may be able to offer on this subject.
The City Council has showed their hand, and it appears they are going all in.
If card rooms are no longer viewed as undesirable by the City Council, then why not allow card rooms in all of Kirkland?
Since the Kirkland City Council is now actively lobbying Olympia on behalf of card rooms, does the City Council now believe that card rooms are desirable in our city? Are card rooms now considered wonderful fountains of social interaction?
One would hope the City Council would not favor gambling establishments in the Norkirk, Houghton or Market neighborhoods. If so, then why would the City Council have a double standard and favor gambling in Kingsgate?
Something doesn’t add up.
Past studies have shown annexation is not financially viable for the City of Kirkland. It is simply too expensive to provide Kirkland-level of services to a population some 68% larger than Kirkland is today (Kirkland’s population is roughly 47,000 and the PAA has a population of about 33,000). Now, in an attempt to make annexation viable, some may be looking for more revenue sources. The Casino Caribbean in Kingsgate is a potential revenue source.
The City has estimated that the Casino Caribbean in Kingsgate could generate approximately $1.5 million [Correction: $.8 - $1.2 million] in taxes. To generate this amount of revenue, the City Council will need to
- successfully lobby Olympia for a change in the law;
- lift the city-wide ban on card rooms / change zoning;
- raise the current 11% tax paid by the card room to a maximum allowable tax of 20%;
- pass annexation in the City Council by a minimum margin of 4 to 3;
- grant the PAA a vote on if they wish to become a part of the City of Kirkland; and
- convince the citizens of Kirkland that this is all in our best interests. [Correction: I have been reminded that the people of Kirkland will not get to vote on annexation and therefore convincing Kirkland citizens that annexation is in their best interests is not necessary. If annexation goes for a vote, only the residents of the Potential Annexation Area will be allowed to vote. Kirkland citizens will not permitted to vote on annexation. The City Council will represent the citizens of Kirkland on this issue. Thank you to Moss Babe and others who have corrected me on this point. - Rob]
_____
A search of the City’s website reveals that the most recent policy direction from the Council was in November of 2007 (slide 8 ) which stated, “The City will continue its ban on card rooms (i.e. the casino would not be allowed)”. In May of 2008 the City Council voted 5-2 to table resolution R-4706 that would have ended the City’s attempt to annex due to the financial burden annexation would have on existing Kirkland citizens. Council members Mary-Alyce Burleigh and Jessica Greenway cast the two dissenting votes having expressed interest in having Kirkland release the PAA and assist Bothell in annexing the area. The resolution was tabled until after the City could take care of its own budget problems.
_____
Sometime during 2008, the Kirkland City Council changed their view on permitting gambling within the city limits. The change of heart came at roughly the same time that annexation was put on hold due to financial concerns.
The City’s 2008 Legislative Agenda stated that “Kirkland supports legislation that would clarify that local governments have the ability to ban and zone gambling activities. Local jurisdictions should have binding authority to determine the land use and zoning regulations that apply to gambling establishments. This is particularly important given the potential negative impacts of gambling establishments on the surrounding community.”
In the final draft of City’s 2009 Legislative Agenda, the City changes course and begins actively lobbying Olympia to allow Kirkland to keep the Casino Caribbean open “without having to allow new establishments in the annexed area or in the existing city.”
_____
In January of this year, the City Council requested the annexation study be updated to reflect the recent changes in the budget. The updated study is available in the City Council packet for the March 3rd study session.
From the City’s Annexation Listening Log:
Q: Would the casino in Kingsgate be allowed to remain if the potential annexation area is incorporated?
A: The casino would not be permitted under Kirkland zoning.
Posted by Rob Butcher on Monday, March 2, 2009 at 8:43 am
Filed under Features · Tagged with Annexation, Casino, City Council, Gambling, Jail, Kingsgate, PAA, Taxes
Print This Article
Related Stories:
|
|
|
|
|
Over time there may be a need to change one’s mind on a subject. When Ben Franklin said what is certain in life are death and taxes. He did not mention change but he should have.
Changes are inevitable. And when things change, the reason needs to be justified. Nothing that has happened in the past year regarding annexation has changed. It’s still too expensive, will increase cost, and will lower our existing levels of service.
So what was the driving force that sent Councilmember McBride down to Olympia to plead for a change in the gambling laws? Given the past statements from our Councilmembers about gambling, the force must have come from outside the city – I suggest the County or someone special interest group in the PAA. The Council needs to represent us, not outsiders.
The PAA and we don’t know if the people in the PAA want to annex or incorporate. They have yet to take a vote.
What is happening with this change of heart about gambling and annexation adds to the argument of those who believe politicians lack integrity. Like death, taxes, and change, it appears to be certain.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This article is little more than finger pointing and rhetoric (the bit of value comes from the time line of events). It seems that the only substantive claim it makes is that, gasp!, people change their minds sometimes. There is no support for why this change should be considered such a bad thing.
There are substantive reasons to oppose gambling in Kirkland; there are substantive reasons to allow existing institutions to consider existing. This article does a disservice to rational discourse about the topic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Erika,
I am quite surprised by your accusation that this article does a disservice to rational discourse about the topic. My intention in writing the article was to shed light on a topic which was not previously in the public eye: The Kirkland City Council has reversed its long-standing ban on gambling within the city limits. If you think this is a disservice, then we must respectfully disagree.
However, the purpose of the article is to ask questions that have not been ask before.
What has changed the minds of our elected officials? Why have they come out in favor of something they vehemently opposed just a few months ago? Again, if you find this line of questioning a disservice, then we will have to agree to disagree.
I would like to know why the City’s policy on gambling has changed. What was the deliberative process the Council went through to come to this conclusion as being in the citizens’ best interests? I have looked for such a debate, but I have yet to find it online. If you are aware of such a deliberation, could you please point me to it? I will post it here if it is found.
I am well aware that I am questioning sacred cows. Sometimes people defend their sacred cows to the point of silencing others from even asking relevant questions. I honestly try to fight that and ask thought-provoking questions. My aim is never to attack individuals. Rather, my aim is to discuss policy decisions and motives.
The above article quoted two sitting members of the Kirkland City Council. I have not tried to misrepresent their positions nor put words in their mouths. I have merely noted that their previous positions have suddenly changed without explanation. I welcome an explanation as to the reasoning behind the Council’s reversal of Kirkland’s gambling ban.
Asking policy-related questions of elected officials is a legitimate service. You may disagree. Or you may only disagree when the questions are asked of an elected official that you support. Would it be okay to ask the same questions if you didn’t support these individuals? I don’t know, but I believe the questions should be asked regardless of political stripe. Whether one supports any particular elected official or not should be irrelevant to the point that legitimate questions should be asked when elected officials abruptly change policies.
Erika, as with everything I write on this blog, if you find a factual error, I invite you to please bring it to my attention and I will immediately make a correction. My goal is always be factual and provoke conversation about the issues.
Thank you for your comments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You assume I disagree with you. However, on this subject I have no opinion yet. What I do have an opinion on is your use of rhetoric, and it is distracting and off putting. Although you may find it hard to believe, some of us are able to see faults in the expression of an opinion whether or not we agree with it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree Erika. There is a lot of rhetoric and not much substance. It would be nice to see a more balanced story on this.
As I understand it, the concerns about the casino have not materialized to be much of anything, so people are more comfortable with it.
I think the art here at the top of the story is blown way out of proportion. This is more of a small cardroom than a full blown casino depicted here.
Change happens, and now that the city is cutting services for everyone, and looking at long term viability and other sources of income, some city leaders see the logic in annexation.
In response to Mr. Styles concerns on a vote and knowing whether those in the PAA want to annex–the city did a survey and the overwhelming majority were in favor of annexation, the same has been true at meetings as well. A vote to take a temperature is therefore not fiscally responsible. A vote to approve or reeject annexation will be required and accomplish the same thing. As for your concern on special interest groups, I know the City of Kirkland Fire Department is very much in favor of annexation and I am sure they have lobbied their case. (Is this an outside special interest group?)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
5 will get you 10 that big money is behind this. Why would the fire department want annexation since they already have jobs putting out Kirkland’s fires. The fire department is one of the city’s government agencies. Why are they lobbying for annexation. What influence do they have?
J
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What’s so bad about card rooms?
I say, let’s have card rooms in Kirkland for the tax revenue but don’t make Kingsgate a part of Kirkland.
Erika, Deputy Mayor McBride was given a chance to explain the change of heart and attitude but she declined. When a politician does that they are fair game. They are either hiding something or emabrrased.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I share Rob’s alarm and dismay at the actions of at least one Council member.
First of all, cities don’t change their minds. People do, but cities don’t. Instead, cities set policies. Before a policy changes, cities engage in discussion, at least amongst Council members. For a non-minor policy change, that discussion needs to involve staff and the public. A change of heart with respect to allowing gambling within the City limits, is not a minor policy change.
Second, I don’t think that the Council was informed of what the Deputy Mayor was doing. According to what was said at the 2/17/09 Council meeting – at approximately 1:37-1:39 on the tape – Councilmember Asher expressed his disapproval and the Mayor also indicated his lack of knowledge that this had taken place. That’s hardly consistent with the Deputy Mayor’s opening comment in Olympia that “Kirkland City Council asked me to be here” or with how “deeply important” this is.
The staff (2/17/09) indicated that this position was on the Legislative Agenda, but that does not completely line up with the facts. The legislative agenda states that “cities that annex an area with existing gambling establishments should have the discretion to allow the establishment to continue operations.” This statement is consistent with what Councilmember Asher said – cities should have the discretion. However, the bill does not provide the cities with discretion – this bill would ~require~ a city to maintain the establishment for at least 3 years after annexation.
The staff did not mention this requirement at the 2/17/09 Council meeting. It is referenced in the Study Session packet for the 3/3/09 meeting.
A 3-year minimum is probably necessary for an existing establishment to wind up its affairs if the annexing city will not continue to allow its existence. But that clause should have been made known to the Council. And if this revenue is necessary in order for annexation to work, will the City give it up in 3 years?
It is unfortunate that Deputy Mayor McBride was ill and was not at the 2/17/09 Council meeting to provide some explanation. It is more unfortunate that she has chosen not to respond to Rob’s offer to provide input in this forum.
I think that Rob has done a great service by shining the light on this, and I think that Mr. Style has likely identified exactly why the Deputy Mayor went to Olympia.
I’m not entirely opposed to casinos and have been known to enjoy them from time to time. I also think that the owners of this business and property have rights that should not be ignored or minimized in importance. However, if a Council member went beyond her authority, in the form of testimony before the legislature, that troubles me. If someone from the staff or the Council authorized her to do this, that would be very helpful to know. And if the City has changed its position, I want to know when that happened and what the reasoning and motivation was.
I only disagree with Rob on one item, and that is item 6 above – the City Council does not need to “convince the citizens of Kirkland that this is all in our best interests.” To the contrary, we have no real voice other than through our elected representatives. We don’t get to vote – the citizens of the PAA have that right, but we don’t. That is who they will be working on convincing to vote “yes” if this goes to ballot.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thank you Moss Babe, for correcting me on #6 above. You are correct, the citizens of Kirkland will not get to vote on annexation. If there is a vote on annexation, only the PAA will be permitted to cast their votes. The Kirkland City Council will represent the citizens of Kirkland on this issue.
For the record, I have made the correction in the article.
Thank you for your comments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Moss Babe:
Thanks for highlighting the comments made by Councilmember Asher about Ms. McBride’s visit to Olympia. I requested an explanation from Council. She pleaded for a change in the gambling laws which if passed would make it easier for her to promote annexation. Her visit to Olympia was to promote her interest, not council’s interest.
Council is aware of the cost of annexation, and of the social culture in Kirkland. If Ms. McBride gets her way, the cost will be high. Kirkland citizens will be paying more for fewer services and more people will expect gambling to pay for their Lexus. Ms. McBride does not represent council; she only represents her special interest.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The red herrings that were put up by the opponents of the casino have all failed to materialize. No increase in drugs, no increase in violent crime, no increase in homelessness, no increase in hookers (god knows I’ve looked), no increase in anything except the taxes paid into the county coffers.
I gambled for 5 years and when I lost enough to buy a new Lexus I quit. There is no doubt that gambling is a vice, just the same as alcohol, cigarettes and wanton lust (more on that later).
Kenmore, Renton, Everett and Lynnwood have prospered with tax revenue from casinos. Some fools have tried to ‘beat the house’ and ended up without enough money to pay rent. It’s their own fault and I have as much sympathy for them as I do for people taking a shortcut by running across I-405.
Darwin had it right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Put a fork in it already. Annexation by Kirkland was done when the economy sank last year. It will take years of hard work to repair the problems created by this council. Don’t let them destroy our city by over extending and making promises we can’t afford. Bob Style is right when he says the there are questions of integrity on the council. Erika wants to discredit this blog and John Gilday is probably looking for his Lexus and I know from experience he won’t find it in a casino.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So right, so right
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree with Moss Babe – Rob is right on except for #6. However, they do have to wait until after the November election.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree with most of the posters on this blog when they say Rob is right. Cami says the art at the top of the page is over the top. I thought it was funny even if it is not a real sign. The two camps on this are obviously PAA people who defend anything that can help their chances for annexing and Kirkland people who don’t like the idea. I don’t think I know anyone who thinks this annexing is good for Kirkland.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s surprising to me the turn around about the casino and I have personal issues in regards to gambling I must say that I haven’t noticed any impact to the community. I’ve noticed more negative impact from some of the bars in downtown Kirkland with the high rate of DUI offenses and reports of large fights and brawls. Personally my desire for annexation has lowered somewhat with all of the fuss and the seeming inability for the Kirkland City Council to make a decision on anything. However, annexation comes under the heading of “Pick you poison”, stick the dysfunction of the county or the dysfunction of the city?
The city if being short sighted about annexation. While the economy is in the tank it would be better to consolidate resources to reduce costs to it’s citizens. There are several capital and operating expenditures that need to happen in the City regardless of annexation! Would people notice any real aesthetic change in the city of annexation were to happen? We are already here!
My main concern though is public safety. I read the Bothell SOBA plan. It seemed to provide better police protection than we currently get but less than what Kirkland would provide. However Bothell indicated that they would only staff two of the four fire stations in the PAA. This seems to be a reduction in fire protection than I receive now! Is Kirkland going to staff the other two stations? How is Kirkland going to staff these stations while losing a few million dollars a year from funding from the fire district when it disappears into the City of Bothell?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m not on the annexation rapid response brigade but I understand why the paa wants to be Kirkland. Their only option is to starve from neglect by the county. If Kirkland can’t afford it then we should help Bothel to do it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Kirkland is promoting gambling and benefiting from the addictive nature of this industry and yes it is an industry with deep pockets to influence our government! Look at how quickly they all jump to the other side when their is money to be had. Its shameful how some of them gladly take money from the addicted and then downplay the issue for political gain. Anyone who has seen up close the destruction of families and lives from addiction knows how what I mean. Kirkland should never allow gambling again and should work hard to close the casino. There are already about 15 other options with in 30 miles for gamblers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sounds to me like an awful lot of hand wringing about “gambling” (oh the horror!) in Kirkland. What the heck do you call the Lucky 7 “Sportsbar” that boasts of $1,390,897 in Payouts in 2005 (old website I guess) ? They have more than 30 pull tab games?? as well as many “prize” delivering games. And that lovely establishment is to be found right here in Kirkland on NE 124th St almost directly across the street from the proposed 640 bed jail. Face it folks,you’ve GOT gambling, right here in Kirkland. Not only that, since most of the public believes that Kingsgate IS part of Kirkland anyway, the argument against annexation of grounds of (gasp) gambling seems a tad on silly side.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Katherine,
I’m not familiar with the Lucky 7 but it sounds like pull tabs is their game and you are correct, that is a form of gambling. The reason for the article was to bring to light the fact that certain council members who had previously been adamantly opposed to card rooms in Kirkland and had previously told us of the horrible social ills associated with gambling have inexplicably changed their tune. This is what is of most interest to me. The real reason for them changing their tune on card rooms is they want annexation and card rooms produce a lot of money they need to pay for annexation. That is the plain truth without value judgments attached. I think it is newsworthy when a City Councilmember is now in favor of card rooms when previously this person joined a protest against the Kingsgate cardroom and was quoted as saying, “Kirkland doesn’t do card rooms”.
Another City Councilmember used to wax poetic about the social ills of gambling and now is all in when it comes to keeping the card room open. Why the change of heart? The answer is money. Now that is okay for councilmembers to change their views on issues, but I think they own an explaination to the public when they do. The local paper was not covering this change in course so I did. I understand how some would rather this information not be public but I think it best when everything our government does is open to the people to debate. Hence this forum.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with casinos. Would I want one in my neighborhood? No. I go to Las Vegas every few years and if I gamble, after losing about $20 I’m bored. Gambling is not the issue for me. The issue is an expectation I have of our elected officials acting in a transparent and consistent manner. If you think I am wrong in this expectation, please let me know.
Thank you for your comments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0