Making a Case for Taking the Gamble

Harry Krebs is 77 years old and has lived 50 of them in Garden Grove. Three of his five children still live in town. He’s volunteered all over the local map and served as the Police Department’s chaplain. Now he’s on the City Council.

This just in: It may be a tough sell to argue that Krebs would knowingly hurt the city he loves. Not that anyone is likely to make that argument, but in a way, Krebs embodies an aspect of the debate about whether casino gambling ever will make headway in Garden Grove.

That is to say that casino opponents typically argue that gambling emporiums are either a social or moral blight on a community. Or both. That’s an opinion usually offered with a suggestion of certainty behind it and designed to silence the other side.

That’s where someone with Krebs’ credentials gums up the works. He’s been around the block enough times to understand what casinos are all about, and guess what? They don’t scare him. Nor would he automatically nix one in the town he loves.

We’re getting way ahead of ourselves here, because there is no plan to put a casino in Garden Grove. But city officials discussed it last year before laying it to rest in the clamor of a municipal election season.

Now, the issue is poking its head above the surface again. A 12-member citizens committee is studying ways to increase local revenue, and a casino is among the smorgasbord of ideas.

Presumably, someone will send the members the front page of Thursday’s Las Vegas Review-Journal, which noted that Nevada’s casino industry “shattered all previous monthly win totals” in March, collecting more than $1 billion from gamblers. The article didn’t pinpoint what that meant to local governments, but it probably didn’t need to.

I recited some of the figures to Krebs, and he replied, “The only conclusion you can really make is that people like to gamble, and they’ll spend money on gambling. And with the way the economy is now -- I think it’s pretty good -- people have money and they’ll spend it.”

He can picture that money in Garden Grove. He’ll wait a few weeks to see what the committee says about the potential for casino-related revenue. If the group looks favorably on it, Krebs says he’s willing to pick up the banner.

“I have no problem with it from a sociological point of view,” he says. “I don’t think it’ll increase crime. I think our police will handle it. In some cases [in other cities] it has increased crime, but that is not universally true.”

He envisions a casino being part of a “classy, world-class resort” that would be a tourist magnet. “In my mind, it’s probably the only way we can make money,” he says of gamblingrelated revenue. “I can’t think of any other way.”

Krebs, who says he’s not a gambler, knows all about the stigma some attach to the casino world. However, he says, conversations with constituents have convinced him that average people are more receptive to the idea than casino opponents suggest.

Especially, he says, when residents realize that Garden Grove needs to pump up the revenue volume.

Krebs was appointed to the council in December to finish out two years of a term. He doesn’t plan to sit there quietly, he says, but emphasizes that he won’t lead a casino charge if the committee pooh-poohs its potential impact.

Besides, there’s a governmental process that would have to play out before any casino sprouted in Garden Grove. I won’t bore you with the details, because it may never happen.

I just find it interesting that a man with Krebs’ stake in the community won’t roll over just because someone mentions the word “casino.” To the contrary, he says, it’s a subject worthy of discussion.

If I were a Garden Grove casino opponent, here’s what I’d worry about:

How many other Harry Krebses are there in town?

Dana Parsons can be reached at (714) 966-7821 or at dana.parsons@latimes.com. An archive of his recent columns is at www.latimes.com/parsons.