Quote:
Originally Posted by darrelplant
I'm fairly certain you're already aware that the law is not an immutable, hard-line beast. There are card rooms in Eugene, Albany, Bend, and elsewhere that operate under the same state laws as the Portland clubs.
In addition to the fact that the city has worked with various owners of clubs over most of a decade, they actually put some resources into the case that went to the Supreme Court last fall. There's some institutional turf there for them to protect, because if they just give up at this point and assent to the idea that they've allowed illegal poker clubs to operate under their noses and with their help for years, well, it looks a little bad. The bureaucrats of Portland are not going to man the barricades of Portland poker, but I don't think they're going to roll over and say "Our bad." That's a big thing that the article missed.
The BOLI cases are more problematic, but even the article admitted it wasn't an issue solely for the poker rooms. The article probably could have used some more input from current and former dealers, what with that being a major sticking point for continued operation. No good-sized dealer pool and there's not way for Final Table or Portland Meadows to run large tournaments.
That leaves the state laws on gambling which—if they're going to be enforced in Portland—are going to have to be enforced statewide by whoever. They haven't been doing it so far, and the Secretary of State keeps giving poker rooms business licenses.
When I talked to Brian at Portland Meadows on Saturday, he told me the hearing—originally scheduled for last Friday—to be today. If it's been pushed back another couple of weeks, I don't think it was PM or FT's doing.
I'm sure you would agree that whether a law is enforced is much different than whether something is legal/illegal. I'm also sure you would agree that the government does not work as a single, coherent beast. The Secretary of State doesn't give more than 10 seconds thought to a business applying for corporate recognition; you have a single clerk looking at the Articles of Organization, verifying the corporation has a "valid purpose" (Final Table simply lists "social gaming"), and verifying the name isn't in use. They're not sitting there thinking "this might be a poker club, and poker clubs are illegal under state law, so I shouldn't let them become a corporation."
The case that went to the Supreme Court never came close to touching the substance of the case, i.e., whether the City's social gaming regulations were contrary to Oregon state law. I certainly don't profess to knowing exactly what the City was thinking, but if I were them the sole issue on appeal (whether an out-of-state entity can challenge a city regulation that does not apply to them, but inflicts a "competitive injury") was more than enough reason to dedicate significant city resources. In other words, my guess is the City didn't challenge the action and fight the appeal because it wanted to save poker (or save face for allowing it to continue), it wanted to protect its sovereignty from outside interests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darrelplant
I'm fairly certain you're already aware that the law is not an immutable, hard-line beast.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Of course laws can change, and of course regulations and implementation of a law can change,
so long as the interpretation is consistent with state law. That's the problem. State law on social gaming is superior to city regulations related to social gaming. Again with the broken record, but I have
extensively analyzed the issue from a legal point of view, reviewing legislative history, case law, and administrative decisions on social gaming in Oregon. Rarely is legislative history as clear as this: when it has addressed the issue, the Oregon legislature has made it clear that social gaming means social gaming, and it doesn't want anyone making money off of it. If someone is making money from it, it violates the state statute. Regardless of what anyone anywhere else is doing, that won't change without legislative action. That HB 2190 passed out of committee shows that might be difficult.