Pico Rivera Calls for June Vote on Card Casino Proposal : Gambling: The council votes 4 to 0 for the special election. Promoters anticipate opposition from clubs in neighboring cities.

Pico Rivera voters will decide in June whether a $35-million card casino should be built in their back yard.

On Monday, the City Council authorized a special election on the casino proposed by MWB Development, which includes developer Michael E. Macke, former Bell Gardens City Atty. Peter L. Wallin and former Bell Gardens City Manager Claude L. Booker.

Fewer than 20 residents attended the council meeting, but city officials and the developers said they expect the debate to heat up over the next four months.

“We fully anticipate the existing (card) clubs will try to stop the city from approving one here,” Wallin said.

The nearby Commerce Casino and Bicycle Club in Bell Gardens will show great interest in the June election, Wallin predicted, because a Pico Rivera club would draw about one-third of each club’s business away, substantially cutting into their revenues.

George G. Hardie, general manager of the Bicycle Club, said a decision has not been made on whether his club will lobby against a new club in Pico Rivera, but he added, “This pie is going to be cut up so much, there isn’t going to be anything left. . . .”

MWB estimated that the new club would generate $7 million annually in tax and licensing revenues for Pico Rivera. The Commerce and Bicycle clubs generated more than $10 million for their cities during fiscal 1991-92.

Some Pico Rivera residents at the council meeting were concerned that a gambling casino would generate not only money but problems.

“We don’t want our police officers taken out of the neighborhoods to watch over some gambling operation,” Louise Lightner told council members. “We need them where they are.”

Mayor John G. Chavez assured Lightner that the club would be far away from residences. It is planned for a vacant 15-acre site off Beverly Boulevard between the San Gabriel River (605) Freeway and the river.

Others worried that vice would follow the card club into the city.

“We would be inviting a criminal element into the area,” Richard Gutierrez said. “We don’t know what to do with the crime we have now.”

A report prepared by Chavez and Councilman Garth G. Gardner, who studied the proposal for the council, dismissed the crime issue as minimal.

“Our research shows that other cities with card clubs have less calls for (police) service than a shopping center of similar size,” Chavez and Gardner wrote.

The proposal says the card casino would generate 1,350 jobs and a $20-million annual payroll. It could also eliminate some taxes and fund youth-oriented programs, the report said.

Last year, Pico Rivera had a $1.8-million budget shortfall that forced the City Council to eliminate five full-time positions and impose a 5% utility tax.

“I do believe we will be in dire need of funds,” resident Henrietta Salazar told the council Monday. “A lot of people are saying it will corrupt the city . . . but I don’t think so.”

The council voted 4 to 0 to call the June election, which is expected to cost the city about $30,000. Council members said the cost of the election is the only money Pico Rivera would spend on the casino plan. Councilman Alberto Natividad was absent.

Similar casino proposals in Inglewood and Long Beach, put to voters last November, met with organized opposition but dissimilar results. Long Beach voted down a plan to allow card gambling on the Queen Mary; Inglewood voters agreed to allow a casino in their city. A card club was approved for Compton in December by the City Council without a citywide vote.

Based on the elections in Long Beach and Inglewood, Chavez and Gardner expect hot debates in their city over the next four months but say the level of opposition will prove the worth of the casino idea.

“The economic value of a card club to a city is dramatically illustrated,” Chavez and Gardner wrote in their council report, “by the fact that during all recent elections in neighboring cities . . . the major opposition, both financially and otherwise, was provided for or sponsored by some of the existing card clubs.”

A date for the June election was not decided.