City of Milpitas Licensed Gambling Establishment, Measure E (November 2014)

Voting on Gambling
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Measures

A City of Milpitas Licensed Gambling Establishment, Measure E ballot question was on the November 4, 2014 election ballot for voters in the city of Milpitas in Santa Clara County, California. It was defeated.

Measure E would have allowed a licensed gambling establishment in the city and created a tax of 10.5 percent on gaming revenues. Any controlled game permitted by law would have been allowed in the gambling establishment, such as draw poker, panguine (pan), seven-card stud and other card or tile games.

Election results

City of Milpitas, Measure E
Result		Votes	Percentage
d No		9,983	75.89%
Yes		3,172	24.11%

Election results via: Santa Clara County Elections Office

Text of measure

Ballot question

The question on the ballot:

“

Shall one licensed gambling establishment in which any controlled games permitted by law, such as draw poker, low-ball poker, panguine (pan), seven-card stud, or other lawful card games or tile games, are played, be allowed in the City of Milpitas and shall that cardroom establishment pay a tax of 10.5% on gaming revenues?

”

Impartial analysis

The following impartial analysis was prepared for Measure E:

“	This Measure E is placed on the ballot by the Milpitas City Council. This Measure, if approved by a majority of the voters, will adopt an ordinance amending the Milpitas Municipal Code to authorize one licensed gambling establishment in the City of Milpitas in compliance with State law, and impose a card room tax at the rate of 10.5% of gross revenue as described below. Gambling in the City is subject to State law and the City's Municipal Code. Currently, State law prohibits the expansion of legal gambling in cities that did not allow legal gambling prior to January 1, 1996. The proposed ordinance would allow for legal gambling in the City, provided all of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) a majority of voters in the City approves this Measure; (2) State law prohibiting the expansion of legal gambling expires, is repealed, or is amended to allow legal gambling within the City boundaries; (3) the requirements of the proposed ordinance pertaining to the issuance of a card room license have been satisfied; and (4) such gambling occurs on or after the effective date of the ordinance. The proposed ordinance adds Chapter 8 to Title III of the Milpitas Municipal Code to provide the regulatory framework for the administration of legal gambling in the City. The proposed ordinance would establish the procedure for obtaining a card room license, the grounds for approval or denial of a card room license application, the procedure for obtaining an employee work permit, audit requirements, and other rules and regulations necessary for the administration of legal gambling in the City. Under the proposed ordinance, the card room licensee would pay the City a card room tax at the rate of 10.5% of gross revenue. If this Measure is approved and the proposed ordinance becomes effective, it would allow a maximum of 115 licensed gambling tables in the City in one licensed card room located in the Recreation and Entertainment Overlay District located west of Freeway I-880, south of the Newby Island landfill site. The People retain the right and power to amend any provisions in the proposed ordinance. The City Council retains the right and power, without a vote of the People, to amend any provisions in the proposed ordinance except the types of games played, limits on wagers, and a decrease in the number of gambling tables. A "yes" vote is a vote to authorize one licensed gambling establishment in the Recreation and Entertainment Overlay District in the City and to approve a new card room tax at the rate of 10.5% of gross revenue as described above. A "no" vote is a vote to not authorize legal gambling in Milpitas and to not approve a 10.5% tax on gross revenue.	”
—Michael J. Ogaz, Milpitas City Attorney

Support

Supporters

• Jose S. Esteves, Mayor, City of Milpitas
• Althea Polanski, Vice Mayor, City of Milpitas
• Eric Emmanuel, President, Milpitas Police Officers Assn.
• Reggie Sutton, President, International Association of Firefighters, Local 1699
• Elizabeth Ainsworth, President, Milpitas Chamber of Commerce

Arguments

The following was submitted as the official arguments in favor of Measure E:

“	We urge "Yes" on Measure E. Milpitas enjoys one of the lowest city tax rates on residents in the region. Yet City expenses to provide adequate police, fire, parks, senior services, youth programs, and street repairs continue to rise. The "belt-tightening" has been done. This is not a tax on Milpitas residents. Yes on Measure E will result in numerous positive benefits for Milpitas: 900 jobs, with good pay and job hiring preferences for Milpitas residents; New City revenue without taxing residents or small businesses; $8 million in new tax revenue to fund public services and improvements, for example, police, fire, parks, water, sewer and street maintenance; All cardroom tax revenue stays in Milpitas–the State does not get a dime. City staff and police management have carefully considered, studied and analyzed the pros and cons of a cardroom in Milpitas. After a thorough evaluation, the positive benefits far outweigh the "doomsday" concerns raised. Yes on Measure E benefits Milpitas because the cardroom will be heavily regulated, audited and monitored, will bring new tax revenue to our City without taxing residents, and will be located on the western boundary of Milpitas in the McCarthy Ranch area near Highway 237–far away from homes, churches or schools. Two major cardrooms already exist in San Jose, only a few miles from our borders. Yes on Measure E permits one of them to move to Milpitas and provides Milpitas with tax revenue instead of San Jose. This will not permit any new cardrooms–it just allows an existing one to move here and let the tax revenue benefit us. A broad coalition of businesses, labor, the Chamber of Commerce, police and fire organizations, and former elected officials ask you to join them– Yes on Measure E.	”
—Jose S. Esteves, Althea Polanski, Eric Emmanuel, Reggie Sutton and Elizabeth Ainsworth

Opposition

Opponents

• Wouter Dito, Life-long Milpitas resident

Arguments

The following was submitted as the official arguments in opposition to Measure E:

“	In America, most of us believe that legally competent adults should be free to do whatever they wish-as long as it does not harm others. That extends to entertainment such as watching sports or other "shows" in person or on TV. But America will not prosper-or even survive-on entertainment alone. America is in debt and every year the federal government spends another trillion dollars more than it takes in. Gambling will not reduce the debt. Not only is gambling unproductive, it is addictive to many and harmful to members of the gambler's family who are often left without money for the mortgage, the rent or even groceries. Gambling transfers wealth-generally from players to gambling operators and their accomplices (sometimes including money-hungry government agencies). Gambling teaches that money can be obtained by playing card games-instead of working and adding real value to the economy. Just because so-called "Indian" tribes and other jurisdictions offer gambling does not mean that Milpitas should join the insanity. In Milpitas, let's encourage productive enterprise-not harmful activities such as organized gambling.	”
—Wouter Dito

See also

• Local gambling on the ballot
• Local business tax on the ballot
• Santa Clara County, California ballot measures
• November 4, 2014 ballot measures in California

External links

Suggest a link

• Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters office website