While I detest VL gambling and wish it would go away like a bad hangover, you do have to scratch your head when even casino owners are questioning the city’s constitutional right to limit and zone casinos;
A judge’s ruling is expected soon on the constitutionality of a 2008 Sioux Falls ordinance that makes much of the city off-limits to new video lottery machines.
Of course the city has a ‘vague’ argument;
Mark Arndt, hired to defend the city, pointed elsewhere in statute and case law. The state allows cities to enact zoning ordinances that promote the “health, safety or the general welfare of the community” when considering “the location and use of buildings,” he said. And the Supreme Court has deferred to local governments on zoning decisions.
“We defer to them because they know how to use their land,” Arndt said. “We get to set reasonable restrictions on where you can put a machine. We get to protect our schools and parks.”
So old people drinking bad coffee and crappy light beer while gambling are a threat to the safety of our schools and parks? I don’t think so. What Mark is talking about is the underlying problem with VL and why it really should just be outlawed. Casinos in SF get robbed – A lot. It’s kinda like building a fire in your living room to cook food. While there is nothing wrong with cooking food or building a fire, just like there is nothing wrong with a little gambling, there is always a risk that a casino could get robbed and your house could burn to the ground (no offense Angry Guy).
I’m just saying.
City government is unconstitutional and a court cannot enforce their civil actions because they do not allow due process (Circuit Court Case 08-2478). This will become the 3rd constitutional case in state supreme court. Someday the mayor should realize that Home Rule Charter is not working out. He’s spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of our money on private lawyers to fight against the constitutions of both the state and federal government.
‘fight against the constitutions of both the state and federal government.’
How sad is that?
Same holds true for “Adult Businesses” that aren’t allowed to be anywhere. You couldn’t start another Annabelles or Romantix or Scarletts or whatever even if you wanted to because of the silly ban.
If someone wants to spend the money to challenge the city and the county they would probably win in the end, but nobody wants to spend a million on a court case for a business that might generate $100k in revenue every year.
Hint…Hint
Negotiating a settlement with the camera ticket class and allowing this one VL exception is cheaper and cleaner than 4 years in state supreme court. If these cases are pending in 2014, Huether has no hope of being reelected and there goes the statue at the new events center.
Really? Kinda like Dan Daily spending over 40K to defend himself against a $300 fine?
I think people who are willing to sacrifice their own capital to defend the constitution for the rest of us are true patriots. And while I detest VL casinos, I commend them challenging our city on what is really a ‘zoning’ and property rights issue, not a gambling issue.
Per Costner
“If someone wants to spend the money to challenge the city and the county they would probably win in the end, but nobody wants to spend a million on a court case for a business that might generate $100k in revenue every year.”
Lawyers will take these cases pro bono (free). They are required to give time annually. Cases like this get them noticed and are free advertising.
One person can spend $41K but cost the city millions from proceeding precident lawsuits. The mayor might learn to curb his narcisist ego and not infringe upon rights guarranteed citizens. Probably not.