San Jose trying to run poker out of town....

loose passive · #1 07-13-2005, 06:31 PM

City wins the right to restrict card clubs

By Rodney Foo
Mercury News

A hearing officer has rejected a second attempt by San Jose's two card clubs to win a reprieve from city rules that would restrict betting and also curb their 24-hour operations.

But the attorney for city's biggest casino contends hearing officer Read Ambler's decision may actually help the clubs in an upcoming Superior Court trial. That court hearing, scheduled for September, will determine if city officials can shut down the clubs from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. and eliminate wagers placed by non-players, also known as back-line betting.

Attorney James McManis, representing Bay 101, said that while Ambler's narrow ruling backs the city's position, it lays out facts that prove new regulations will have a ``devastating'' economic impact on Bay 101 and Garden City Casino, and result in their closing.

Ambler's Monday ruling is the latest episode in a long-running saga involving San Jose's attempts to rein in the card clubs. Mayor Ron Gonzales has gone on record against the clubs, saying he would prefer to see the clubs closed because of their effect on chronic gamblers and their families.

In 1999, the city council approved limiting betting and the clubs' reduced hours. The council also gave the clubs two years to prepare for the new rules. In 2001, the clubs both sought to evade the rules by filing for economic hardship, saying the regulations would drive them out of business.

As a result, representatives from both the city and the clubs appeared at an administrative hearing, presided by Ambler, to argue their case. In 2002, Ambler issued a ruling that turned down the clubs's pleas. The city instituted the curfew and betting rules. For about two weeks, Bay 101 operated under the new rules and reported a loss of more than $500,000. The club also laid off a third of its staff, more than 200 employees.

Both clubs went to court and were granted an injunction, temporarily lifting the rules and setting up a trial scheduled for September. The clubs are seeking to set aside Ambler's original ruling, and they also contend the new rules represent an unconstitutional taking of their businesses. City attorneys argue that it is within San Jose's authority to regulate businesses.

Meanwhile, Superior Court Judge William F. Martin ordered the city and the clubs to go through a second hearing with Ambler that would take into account Bay 101's experience under the new rules. That hearing was held last year.

This week, Ambler issued his new ruling, finding that the clubs did not meet two legal requirements for a waiver. He said they failed to institute cost-cutting measures, other than laying off workers, before the rules went into effect, and also failed to reduce the workforce by attrition.

City Attorney Rick Doyle, who pointed out that the ruling reinforces the city's earlier victory, said his staff is analyzing it to determine its effect on the trial.

But McManis said he believes Ambler's decision will help his client in the long run because it supports Bay 101's contentions that the rules will financially cripple the club despite what city officials say to the contrary.

In fact, Ambler's decision notes the enforcement of the ordinances ``resulted in a devastating impact on Bay 101.

``Bay 101 has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence . . . that all its existing employees would have to be terminated from employment if the ordinance is fully enforced. Bay 101 would have to close its doors,'' Ambler wrote.

Said McManis: ``We couldn't be happier by this decision.''

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact Rodney Foo at rfoo@mercurynews.com or (408) 975-9346.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2005 MercuryNews.com and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.mercurynews.com

tek · #2 07-13-2005, 08:19 PM

People would have more money to visit the Winchester House if the poker bards closed in SJ [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

stabn · #3 07-13-2005, 08:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
People would have more money to visit the Winchester House if the poker bards closed in SJ [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

God that place sucks.

Al_Capone_Junior · #4 07-13-2005, 09:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
eliminate wagers placed by non-players, also known as back-line betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. I know a lot about poker, but this practice is not something I am familiar with. For the purpose of completeness, please do elaborate here, I'm always wanting to know every aspect of cardrooms, poker, and gambling in general.

[ QUOTE ]
Attorney James McManis, representing Bay 101, said that while Ambler's narrow ruling backs the city's position, it lays out facts that prove new regulations will have a ``devastating'' economic impact on Bay 101 and Garden City Casino, and result in their closing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I don't want this to happen by any means, I somehow highly doubt that this will be the case. I played at the lucky lady in San Diego all the time, and every single day, it closed at 2am and re-opened at 9am. I just loved the place, and so did lots of other players. Such a ruling would hurt them economically, and force them to lay off some graveyard people but let's face it, they AIN'T going to close over it.

[ QUOTE ]
Mayor Ron Gonzales has gone on record against the clubs, saying he would prefer to see the clubs closed because of their effect on chronic gamblers and their families.

[/ QUOTE ]

Way to suck the assess of your right-wingers, hoping for their vote come re-election time. Chronic gamblers will chronically gamble no matter what the rules are, and eliminating the tiny geographical area around your local jurisdiction ain't gonna change the fact that california is chock full of card clubs.

Note that when the lucky lady in san diego closes, there's an all-night joint just a mere 20 minutes away (viejas), and several other clubs nearby as well.

However, the impact on the club itself could easily be considered "devastating" if you consider how much per year, for all those employees, is going to be lost by such a (despicable) ruling.

F*** the city, let the cardrooms do what they do best, DEAL THE FRIGGIN' CARDS.

Besides, I thought all the right-wing bible-belters were sequestered to the midwest where they belong, rotting away in the heat and humidity? Why the hell all this all of a sudden in the great state of california? Friggin' punks, need to be kicked in the nuts.

al

malo · #5 07-13-2005, 10:39 PM

Find this development very surprising. The last place I would expect such rumblings about poker rooms is California.

When the bible-thumpers in Oklahoma can give the go ahead to tribals to open poker rooms and expand their gaming options, it just seems strange that someone in San Jose has their underwear in a knot over card rooms that have been there for years, and based on what I have seen of Bay 101 on TV, pretty nice.

Unfortunately, I'm one of those midwesterners living in the heat and humidity, but I get so tired of people who try (via legislative means) to "protect" people from what the legislators feel are these poor folks "vices."

Luckily for everyone here...I'm too tired to get started on a real rant.......

PITTM · #6 07-13-2005, 10:59 PM

good, run these shams out of town. there is absouletely no possible way they need to rake 50% of what they take. if theyre gonna regulate the casinos and put restrictions on them it will cost more in rake to play in their games. and they already rake far far far more than any other casino ive been to. im really really done with bay 101s hilarious rake schedule, ill sit here and play online instead, until tahoe this weekend [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

rj

loose passive · #7 07-14-2005, 12:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
eliminate wagers placed by non-players, also known as back-line betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. I know a lot about poker, but this practice is not something I am familiar with. For the purpose of completeness, please do elaborate here, I'm always wanting to know every aspect of cardrooms, poker, and gambling in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has to do with games such as Pai Gow....

Back line Bet: Each betting position has three
betting circles, #1, #2, #3. Circle #1 is for the
player occupying the seat at that position. Circles
#2 and #3 are considered back line bet areas,
meaning that bets can be placed on the cards
that Circle #1 received. Back line Betting circles
do not receive a separate set of cards. All Back
line wagers must be at a minimum bet.

From- http://www.hustlergaming.com/images/...aiGowPoker.pdf

Essentially it is betting on a player's hand when you are not in the game.

SossMan · #8 07-14-2005, 01:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
good, run these shams out of town. there is absouletely no possible way they need to rake 50% of what they take. if theyre gonna regulate the casinos and put restrictions on them it will cost more in rake to play in their games. and they already rake far far far more than any other casino ive been to. im really really done with bay 101s hilarious rake schedule, ill sit here and play online instead, until tahoe this weekend [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

rj

[/ QUOTE ]

the rake in their tournaments is quite reasonable. i will be really sad if they close.

Nightwish · #9 07-14-2005, 05:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Way to suck the assess of your right-wingers, hoping for their vote come re-election time.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are no right wingers in San Jose. The whole Bay Area is boringly monotonic when it comes to politics and overall somewhere to the left of the former Soviet Union.

[ QUOTE ]

Besides, I thought all the right-wing bible-belters were sequestered to the midwest where they belong, rotting away in the heat and humidity?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, they're running this country. Welcome to reality, leftie.

Al_Capone_Junior · #10 07-14-2005, 12:42 PM

Yeah, I know the bible belters are everywhere, but if you've ever LIVED in the bible belt, california is about as left wing as you've ever seen in your life. Besides, any chance I get to take a stab at these jerkoffs, I'll take it, even if I have to exaggerate a little. They'll certainly be exaggerating more than just a little when it comes to their ridiculous arguments for oppressive legislation....

al