Thursday, April 03, 2008
The Move for Big Government in Lakewood
Lakewood has traditionally been thought of as a pretty libertarian place. It was the place you moved to, years ago, when you did not want to live within Tacoma and be part of a city. I have always thought of Lakewood as a sort of 'live and let live' sort of community. That does not mean it is as politically conservative as some folks think; it's fascinating we are one of the few places in the state to approve the recent transportation proposal.
This whole feeling of 'live and let live,' of course, colored the cityhood debates that began decades ago. Plenty of folks did not want additional government.What happened, of course, was that we learned we needed at least some additional government. And by now, most folks would say that Lakewood has benefited from parts of cityhood: the lack of strip clubs, the addition of dozens of police, the cleaning up of junked neighborhoods, the numerous improvements to streets and parks ...
Where the whole past and present come into conflict is when you continue to extend government. It fascinates me that 'my' little 'live and let live' city is considering two big government moves: telling people they can't gamble, and regulating breeds of dogs.
I originally thought of writing a parody column about how the anti-gambling folks are so persuasive, I now support extending government into new areas: banning French fries to prevent childhood obesity, and banning alcohol and tobacco to prevent alcoholism and cancer. The image of putting Lakewood city staff into Burger King to check the fat content of the super-sized meals would be a nice funny bit. And honestly, obesity is a huge public health problem that costs us a fortune as a society. But by writing such a parody column, I would do a disservice to the absolute sincerity of those who think a Lakewood ban on minicasinos would accomplish something.
Of course, it would not. A ban on minicasinos would only teach our youth that adults focus their political efforts on meaningless statements that make us feel better, but accomplish nothing in the real world except shut down legitimate businesses and throw people out of jobs. Gambling would continue. Heck, the entire state of Washington sanctions gambling to help pay for schools, of all things, via the Lottery. I drive past an "Indian casino" when going to work every day, and there are more cars parked there in the early morning than I have ever seen at a Lakewood minicasino. A ban on Lakewood minicasinos would be pointless.
But this is where big government - 'government as solution' - comes in. There are plenty of folks who think government can solve gambling, or can solve the problem of stupid pet owners, or what have you. And it's only fair for them to raise the question. We do look to government for answers in ways I just described ... through more police, through regulation of strip clubs, etc... Lakewood has and will do a better job of zoning for minicasinos. And there are enough complaints that we need to take another look at animal control rules. I don't think of someone like Councilman Ron Cronk as being a big government guy, so maybe it makes sense that he be the one to stick his neck out and propose a change to Lakewood's approach, much like it took Nixon of all people to go to China. Whatever the subject, it's thrilling that others in the community are going to take the city's new "initiative and referendum" system for a test drive.
So no more jokes. This is serious stuff. Let's find out how big Lakewood wants its government to be.
Forward this post
This whole feeling of 'live and let live,' of course, colored the cityhood debates that began decades ago. Plenty of folks did not want additional government.What happened, of course, was that we learned we needed at least some additional government. And by now, most folks would say that Lakewood has benefited from parts of cityhood: the lack of strip clubs, the addition of dozens of police, the cleaning up of junked neighborhoods, the numerous improvements to streets and parks ...
Where the whole past and present come into conflict is when you continue to extend government. It fascinates me that 'my' little 'live and let live' city is considering two big government moves: telling people they can't gamble, and regulating breeds of dogs.
I originally thought of writing a parody column about how the anti-gambling folks are so persuasive, I now support extending government into new areas: banning French fries to prevent childhood obesity, and banning alcohol and tobacco to prevent alcoholism and cancer. The image of putting Lakewood city staff into Burger King to check the fat content of the super-sized meals would be a nice funny bit. And honestly, obesity is a huge public health problem that costs us a fortune as a society. But by writing such a parody column, I would do a disservice to the absolute sincerity of those who think a Lakewood ban on minicasinos would accomplish something.
Of course, it would not. A ban on minicasinos would only teach our youth that adults focus their political efforts on meaningless statements that make us feel better, but accomplish nothing in the real world except shut down legitimate businesses and throw people out of jobs. Gambling would continue. Heck, the entire state of Washington sanctions gambling to help pay for schools, of all things, via the Lottery. I drive past an "Indian casino" when going to work every day, and there are more cars parked there in the early morning than I have ever seen at a Lakewood minicasino. A ban on Lakewood minicasinos would be pointless.
But this is where big government - 'government as solution' - comes in. There are plenty of folks who think government can solve gambling, or can solve the problem of stupid pet owners, or what have you. And it's only fair for them to raise the question. We do look to government for answers in ways I just described ... through more police, through regulation of strip clubs, etc... Lakewood has and will do a better job of zoning for minicasinos. And there are enough complaints that we need to take another look at animal control rules. I don't think of someone like Councilman Ron Cronk as being a big government guy, so maybe it makes sense that he be the one to stick his neck out and propose a change to Lakewood's approach, much like it took Nixon of all people to go to China. Whatever the subject, it's thrilling that others in the community are going to take the city's new "initiative and referendum" system for a test drive.
So no more jokes. This is serious stuff. Let's find out how big Lakewood wants its government to be.
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
"banning French fries to prevent childhood obesity, and banning alcohol and tobacco to prevent alcoholism and cancer"
Agreed. Banning casinos makes as much sense as closing down The Ram, the Schooner, and the wine section at Safeway.
Agreed. Banning casinos makes as much sense as closing down The Ram, the Schooner, and the wine section at Safeway.
how come its ok to get rid of strip clubs, but its absurd to get rid of gambling establishments? people still frequent strip clubs outside of our little 'live and let live' community... but our city had to take a stand for what is right.... right?
Christina, I can see where you are coming from, but the city did not ban strip clubs in the same way that a ban is being proposed for minicasinos. The strip clubs were shut down voluntarily or otherwise after people in and around the clubs broke laws, in ways that the existing minicasinos are NOT breaking laws, as far as I know.
I would not support an outright ban on strip clubs, just as I do not support a ban on lawful gambling establishments. In fact, it would not be legal for me to support such a ban in the case of strip clubs. No city in the United States can ban strip clubs, by law, because of the Constitutional right to free expression (dance) as interpreted by the courts.
That said, Lakewood did enforce laws in the strip clubs, and since strip club owners and their associates often don't follow laws, a lot of the businesses shut down. I think the results of all that enforcement action is what you are thinking of.
The situation is different with minicasions. Most cops would tell you that the minicasinos generally do follow the law, because they know what would happen if they don't. They would end up like the strip clubs and enforcement actions could eventually cause their closure.
I would not support an outright ban on strip clubs, just as I do not support a ban on lawful gambling establishments. In fact, it would not be legal for me to support such a ban in the case of strip clubs. No city in the United States can ban strip clubs, by law, because of the Constitutional right to free expression (dance) as interpreted by the courts.
That said, Lakewood did enforce laws in the strip clubs, and since strip club owners and their associates often don't follow laws, a lot of the businesses shut down. I think the results of all that enforcement action is what you are thinking of.
The situation is different with minicasions. Most cops would tell you that the minicasinos generally do follow the law, because they know what would happen if they don't. They would end up like the strip clubs and enforcement actions could eventually cause their closure.
There's still a strip club, Deja Vu, just south of South Tacoma Way and Steilacoom Blvd, isn't there?
But yeah, I found it quite amusing that one of the reasons that Lipstix got shut down was because the stripper poles weren't fastened securely enough, making for a dangerous workplace. Hilarious :-)
Post a Comment
But yeah, I found it quite amusing that one of the reasons that Lipstix got shut down was because the stripper poles weren't fastened securely enough, making for a dangerous workplace. Hilarious :-)
Links to this post:
<< Home
