Cypress Voters Could Turn to Colorado for Gambling Advice

San Clemente has money problems, so it cans the Police Department. Cypress has money problems, so it flirts with the idea of a gambling parlor.

San Clemente says none of its cops will lose their jobs. Not to worry. Even if they do, I can think of a town that may be hiring some extra police if a certain card-club initiative passes.

Come June, Cypress voters will decide if they want a round-the-clock gambling hall. I’m glad they’re putting it to a vote because it’ll be much more socially enlightening to learn how a few thousand people feel about gambling than what five council members think.

We know that the pro-gambling forces led by Lloyd Arnold will put together a snazzy public relations campaign. It will promise jobs, revenue and good clean fun.

All those things will be true. For some people.

The question is whether Arnold will lay all the cards on the table. Assuming he may not, I contacted a couple of people who also know a thing or two about the gambling business.

One is Jean Falzon, executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling.

“Our concern is for the victims, and there will be victims,” Falzon said in a phone conversation. She means the victims who have a compulsive gambling problem who will be drawn to the gaming tables.

While her council doesn’t take a position on gambling parlors, Falzon said her group hopes the backers set aside some revenue to address the potential gambling problem. At a minimum, she said, she hopes the city will provide hot lines and public-awareness campaigns about the potential perils of compulsive gambling. From 2% to 5% of the adult population is believed to have a compulsive-gambling problem, she said.

As cities and states continue having revenue problems, she said, they’re turning more often to legalized gambling. She noted that 48 states have some form of legalized gambling and that $300 billion was legally wagered last year.

I also placed a call to Central City, Colo., a mountain town of 300 people. As such, it may not be analogous to Cypress, other than it got that gambling bug and, along with two other Colorado towns, received permission to operate casinos beginning in October, 1991.

Colorado voters had to amend the state Constitution to authorize gambling. When voters were asked again in 1992 to expand gambling to another half-dozen cities, including Denver, they turned it down.

Not surprisingly, raising money was the rationale for the casinos. Central City was a historic mining town with a collapsing infrastructure. “We were falling down and didn’t have the money to fix it,” says Tamra Tate, Central City spokeswoman. “We had 100-year-old buildings that literally were crumbling into the street, our water reservoir was also crumbling, but the owners of the buildings had no money to fix up and preserve them.”

Passage of the gambling amendment dictated that part of the revenue go to historical preservation, Tate said.

How has it worked out? I asked her. “It’s been a real mixed bag,” Tate said. The city thought it was going to get a few casinos; now the number is 18. “The intent was to keep it on a smaller scale than it is,” she said, but the state’s interpretation of the amendment allowed for a proliferation of casinos. The town of 300 no longer has a grocery store or gas station--both were sold and converted to casinos.

The casinos have delivered revenue, Tate said. Central City’s operating budget, which reflects its money on hand, went from $350,000 to $6.5 million. “There’s more money coming in, but services are strained and we’re spending it,” she said. For example, the Police Department went from three full-time employees to 15, she said.

What isn’t disputable is the employment boom. “A lot of local people have jobs who didn’t have jobs--and pretty well-paying jobs,” Tate said.

What about crime? “When people come up and gamble, they tend to drink. We have people walking around with cash in hand and drinking a lot. . . .” As such, Tate said, street crime has picked up somewhat, and there are drinking-and-driving problems, “but if you’re talking about crimes of violence and organized crime, no.”

On balance, I asked, do city officials wish they’d never supported legalized gambling?

“There’s not much point in that kind of thinking,” Tate said. “We’re not going to turn around and go back. The feeling now is we better all pull together and make this new industry succeed in our community, because we can’t go back to being the sleepy, quiet, remote mountain village again.”

Call it a hunch, but I’m guessing the Cypress council doesn’t know whether it wants to play or not. It likes the idea of easy money but isn’t quite sure where the game will lead.

Until it is sure, I’d advise them the way I’d advise any novice card-player who doesn’t know what he’s getting into: Walk away from the table until you figure it out.