Council Deals Losing Hand to Casino Plan : Gambling: Mayor O’Connor leads 8-0 vote to reject gaming hall and reaffirm policy to phase out card rooms.

A proposal to build a $30-million card casino in Mission Valley could not make the opening bid at San Diego City Hall on Monday, as the City Council rejected the plan by reaffirming a policy aimed at gradually phasing out card rooms.

Although the council framed its rejection in the strongest possible terms, the casino’s proponents pledged to bring the proposal back to City Hall for a future hearing--perhaps after Mayor Maureen O’Connor, an ardent opponent, retires in December.

“Now that she has made her feelings known so strongly, that might not be such a bad idea,” said Ron Mix, the attorney for the San Diego Card Club Assn. “We want an open-minded, dispassionate hearing, but right now emotions are high and minds seem to be closed. That might change with a change of administrations.”

Describing the casino plan as “the absolute incorrect thing to do,” O’Connor hoped to effectively prohibit its future reconsideration by specifying that the council’s unanimous consent would be needed to rehear the issue. City attorneys told the mayor, however, that Monday’s decision could not legally restrict future councils’ actions.

Even so, the council’s unanimous vote made the chances that the proposed 100-table card casino will ever become reality as unlikely as drawing to an inside straight. After Monday’s 8-0 vote, with Councilman Bob Filner absent, City Manager Jack McGrory said he will not consider any future casino proposals, absent specific council instruction to do so.

By its action, the council reaffirmed a measure passed in the 1980s aimed at eliminating card rooms through attrition by prohibiting individuals who hold licenses from selling or transferring the permits, even to family members. That policy has reduced the number of card rooms in San Diego, which totaled more than 100 in the late 1970s, to only a dozen through deaths and retirements of license holders.

Monday’s council hearing essentially was a public demonstration of the depth of the members’ opposition to the casino proposal, which the San Diego Card Club Assn. had asked to have withdrawn from the council’s agenda in light of sharply critical reports from the Police Department and the district attorney’s office recommending that it be turned down.

O’Connor, however, insisted that the council conduct a full-blown hearing on the matter, so as to “not leave . . . any slim chance that this council is going to compromise this community.”

Under the proposal, the California Commerce Club, a Los Angeles County gaming club, sought to consolidate the dozen local card rooms into a new gambling casino. If the project were approved, the city stood to receive an initial $2-million fee and about $10 million annually in revenue from the club, which also was to contain a showroom and gourmet restaurant.

“In a tough financial time, $10 million a year is something that any of us in government has to look at seriously,” Police Chief Bob Burgreen told the council. “However, what are the down sides?”

Reiterating criticisms made in last week’s reports, police and district attorney’s officials warned that the expanded card room operation could attract loan-sharking, money-laundering and other corruption.

Because nearly two-thirds of the Commerce Club’s revenue comes from Asian card games, San Diego police also expressed concern that a new, larger card room would lead to the involvement of Asian organized crime and increased “follow-home” attacks on big winners.

The council members’ comments made it clear that such concerns far outweighed the casino proposal’s potential financial advantages.

“I have no patience or tolerance for putting our city or our citizens in harm’s way,” Councilwoman Abbe Wolfsheimer said.

Noting that her office had been deluged with calls opposing the casino proposal, Councilwoman Valerie Stallings said, “The basic theme is, ‘Don’t bring trouble home.’ ”

Beyond law enforcement leaders’ opposition, the casino proposal also attracted controversy because of former Mayor Roger Hedgecock’s activities on its behalf. While Hedgecock had promoted the proposal’s merits in talks with McGrory, Burgreen and other top city officials in recent weeks, he did not notify the city clerk’s office of his lobbying activities, as required by city law.

Although Hedgecock insisted that he did not have a formal lobbying contract, a document detailing the casino plan stated that the former mayor and an El Cajon card room owner could make more than $500,000 in fees and receive a 5% partnership share for assisting in the negotiations between local card room owners and city officials.

Hedgecock’s role was mentioned only obliquely in Monday’s debate, however, when O’Connor complained that much of the preliminary behind-the-scenes discussions over the proposal had occurred “beneath the radar.”

“When the public finally found out, it was almost too late,” O’Connor said.

McGrory stressed, however, that the Police Department and his staff had already concluded that the card casino idea should be rejected before the controversy over Hedgecock’s involvement.

Despite Monday’s setback, card room attorney Mix said he hopes that the plan’s “financial merits” still might prove persuasive to a council facing severe budgetary constraints.

“If we can get a fair hearing in an unemotional atmosphere, I think the council will be very surprised at the financial advantages and be shocked at the total lack of substance to the type of fears that have been expressed about organized crime and prostitution and loan-sharking,” Mix said. “But some time will have to pass before we can get that kind of a hearing on this issue.”