No Bull, No Fluff, No Smudges
Your news source for
Flagler, Florida and Beyond

Palm Coast Looking to Other Cities for Guidance on Storefront Gambling Regulations

| June 1, 2011

One of Palm Coast's seven 'internet cafes,' that one at the moribund European Village. (© FlaglerLive)

The Palm Coast City Council is interested in regulating “internet cafes,” a form of electronic gambling that involves slot machines and games of chance that state law permits, but that an increasing number of sheriffs and local governments across the state consider similar to casinos. There are seven such storefront casinos in Palm Coast, with four more on the way. Next Tuesday, the city council will vote on a six-month moratorium on the businesses.

That doesn’t resolve the matter. What then? A moratorium “is easy, it’s a temporary measure,” City Manager Jim Landon told the council Tuesday. A permanent measure defining the future of the businesses is the more difficult matter, which the council appears for now unable to resolve.

The issue has proved somewhat divisive: There’s little clarity and plenty of contradictions across the state on the issue, along with a state Legislature that has proven incapable of resolving the matter through consistent regulation.

Florida legislative analysis estimates there are anywhere from 350 to 1,000 such gambling joints in the state. The New York Times reported earlier this month that the businesses in this state alone gross about $1 billion. Here’s where things stand in the state:

In Port Orange, Allied Veterans of the World, a corporation that runs close to 40 “internet cafés” in Florida, is suing the city over its refusal to grant the corporation a zoning exception that would have allowed it to open an Internet gambling hall. Port Orange enacted a 180-day moratorium on gambling joints last December, and just extended it for another six months.

Last year, the Jacksonville City Council attempted to ban the storefront casinos only to face a six-month onslaught of lawyers and lobbyists led by Allied Veterans, who successfully watered down the resulting ordinance passed in November. New gambling halls were banned. Existing ones were allowed to keep operating—but also required to pay surtaxes. In essence, the Allied Veterans onslaught resulted in a protectionist measure for storefront gambling halls, which thenceforth were assured that they’d no longer face additional competition. Gambling concerns couldn’t ask for a better outcome.

Baker and Leon counties have considered bans, but not enacted them. Altamonte Springs will vote on July 5 either to impose a moratorium or to ban the joints altogether. Leesburg passed a 180-day moratorium last month. Casselberry, Deltona and Orange City have done so previously.

Last January, Seminole County passed an ordinance that prohibits virtual slot machines or devices with games “ordinarily played at casinos.” But Allied Veterans is suing there, too. The ban is suspended pending that legal resolution. In effect, there is no ban in place on storefront casinos anywhere in Florida, and Sallied Veterans is ready to pounce on any local government that enacts one.

Rep. Scott Plakon, the Longwood Republican, introduced a bill (HB217) during the last session of the Legislature that would have banned storefront gambling or any electronic device connected to game promotion, sweepstakes, drawings, raffles or games of chance. The bill passed the Business and Consumer Affairs Subcommittee, 10-5, suggesting strong support. It went nowhere after that. A companion bill in the Senate never moved. Several legislators get donations from the gambling industry. At least two Florida legislators—Rep. Peter Nehr, the Palm Harbor Republican, and Sen. Mike Bennett, the Bradenton Republican and one of the Senate’s most powerful members (he’s the one who was looking at nudie pictures during a Senate floor debate on abortion)—own internet cafés.


Locally, on May 17, the city’s planning board split, 3-3, over the proposed moratorium ordinance, with one of its members—Bob Cuff, a lawyer—abstaining, because he represents one of the businesses. The split vote reflected the hair-splitting discussion that preceded it as members wondered: if Starbucks offers free wi-fi, how could that not be an internet café? Landon ridiculed the notion (“Absolutely not, and it’s not intended to be such,” he said on Tuesday). But a 3-3 vote is the equivalent of a rejection of the proposal.

Nevertheless, the Palm Coast city administration is pushing forward with the proposal and recommending its approval next week, along with options for the future.

One of them is to take the Seminole County route: declare internet gambling illegal, and make no exceptions. That means no grandfather clause for existing businesses. Those in place would have to be shut down. Landon is not advising the council to do that—at least not until the issue is resolved in Seminole County, which is now bearing the legal costs of the battle on its own.

Another option: regulating them through land development code. They can be restricted to certain areas, but they cannot be limited in numbers. If Palm Coast allowed them along Palm Coast Parkway, for example, it could not say that there would be a limit of five or 10 on Palm Coast Parkway. Council member Frank Meeker doesn’t like that idea. He opposes “clusters” of cafés, namely because if it’s established that the cafes bring trouble, then they should not be allowed. But there’s no documented evidence that the businesses have brought criminal trouble in Palm Coast.

The comparison was made with sex joints. Mayor Jon Netts took exception to the comparison on a couple of counts. “I think for your adult entertainment establishments—and I still don’t like the word adult entertainment; I think of them as juvenile entertainment—there is a tremendous body of evidence suggesting the need to regulate them. There clearly is crime and so on associated with them. Other than that one recent incident in the newspaper,” Netts continued, referring to storefront gambling, “I don’t see that same body of evidence suggesting that these things are, well, inherently evil.”

Meeker cited a study that did link the gambling joints to crime. “The bottom line is, law enforcement seems to be pretty much stacked up with the idea that says, it’s not that the people that are in them are bad, it’s that they attract the wrong element.”

“But if that were the case Frank,” Netts countered, “then we should be pursuing banning convenience stores, because locally there’s a lot more crime associated with convenience stores and drugstores than internet cafes.”

Council member Bill Lewis put it this way: “It’s not today. It’s tomorrow. That’s what’s going to happen. Today Palm Coast is 10 years old, it is ripe, it is brand new, there’s not much crime here, but it doesn’t take long, you know, once the little doggy sniffs something, all the other dogs come in. So are we going to be waiting for the dogs to come in?”

The route council members and the mayor favor most is for the state to resolve the matter uniformly, although current law—or absence of law—is, in fact, the state’s position: Florida does not consider the cafes to be gambling. So it doesn’t regulate them. It doesn’t tax them differently than other businesses. That, however, is Netts’ preferred approach: he doesn’t want the businesses eliminated. He wants them regulated.

The state failed to act on the matter last month. There’ll be no further action until next year. So looking to the state is not, in fact, an option. Palm Coast will have to decide for itself whether and how to regulate the businesses. The moratorium will buy it six months.

Print Friendly

3 Responses for “Palm Coast Looking to Other Cities for Guidance on Storefront Gambling Regulations”

  1. Rob says:

    Instead of making efforts to stifle business in the city the administration and council should use the same vehemence to foster business growth.

    The word regulate is a metaphor for lets figure out how to tax these folks a little bit more.

    I am beginning to think that the scope or capacity of this town council doesn’t go much further than making a decision to build or not to build a fence around a park.

    Anything more in-depth appears to be to a “TAXING” decision.

  2. Anita says:

    If you want to introduce this industry to Palm Coast, then do it right. Divert the funds for City Hall and build a casino and hotel on A-1-A, with all of the amenities. Vegas can’t provide a view of our ocean. Visitors will flock to the area and you will make enough money to build your City Hall, but please do not build it in some cheesy storefront and NOT on Palm Coast Parkway, the heart of Palm Coast, and so close to residential areas.

  3. Paul says:

    Lately,

    I have been seeing the city approach into areas they should not be, for example, the extensive use of code enforcement officers for the pettiest of issues, and improper regulation of businesses in the City. A time when there are thousands of empty homes in this community, and approximately 16% of the workforce citizens unemployed, creation of jobs is paramount. The second would to be cutting your budget appropriately, not on the backs of the employees who work hard for you day in and day out! for example replacing the trees/grass on Belle Terre three times in two years to me is not fiscally responsible, and personally, I don’t care where the money came from, because the end result is the tax payers got it to you somehow, whether it was through collection of federal taxes, or if you collected it locally! It was still our money you spent.

    I will say this, I attempted to speak to my elected official, Hosley Moorman, last fall about several issues I feel are important to the City’s growth and development. He specifically told me this statement “some of these people are ridiculous with what they call me for.” He then referred to a lady that called him and complained about the lack of response from the sheriff’s office in her neighbor hood in relation to a patrol issue. He straight up told me this lady was ridiculous for calling him. He followed this up with “the people asked him to run” for office. Well, anyone in a public position that thinks like that should resign, let alone run again for this elected position. I don’t care what your credentials are, if you are an elected official and you don’t have time for your constituents and then complain about complaints you receive, QUIT! No one is asking you to be there, you were asking us, the citizens to elect you, and if you don’t have time then, leave! There is someone else willing and able to do your job, and will probably do it better!

    Mr. Moorman, I can assure you this, I will be getting the word out about your lack of caring, and professionalism with me on the phone! Just like you said, the $9,000 dollars you get paid is not worth it! The money is not only not worth it, but we the tax payers should not be paying it to you either with a poor attitude!

Leave a Reply

Read FlaglerLive's Comment Policy | Subscribe to the Comment Feed rss flaglerlive comment feed rss

More stories on FlaglerLive
Loading

ADVERTISEMENTS

Vincent G. Verdeflor palm coast pediatrics pediatrician medicaid accepted
camera surveillance web watchdogs palm coast gospel gardens palm coast landscaping maintenance
flaglerlive flagler live support palm coast flagler county news pierre tristam
news service of florida
Advertisement
Log in | FlaglerLive, P.O. Box 354263, Palm Coast, FL 32135-4263 | 386/586-0257