{"id":178864,"date":"2017-02-20T19:49:06","date_gmt":"2017-02-21T00:49:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/city-council-to-look-at-removing-zoning-restrictions-on-gambling-entities-watertown-public-opinion\/"},"modified":"2017-02-20T19:49:06","modified_gmt":"2017-02-21T00:49:06","slug":"city-council-to-look-at-removing-zoning-restrictions-on-gambling-entities-watertown-public-opinion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/gambling\/city-council-to-look-at-removing-zoning-restrictions-on-gambling-entities-watertown-public-opinion\/","title":{"rendered":"City Council to look at removing zoning restrictions on gambling entities &#8211; Watertown Public Opinion"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>      A section of a Watertown city zoning ordinance pertaining to      gambling establishments could go by the wayside.    <\/p>\n<p>      The Watertown City Council is set to conduct a first reading      amending Title 21 of Ordinance 17-02 removing zoning      restrictions on those entities on March 6. The potential      revision would put the city in compliance with a 2011 South      Dakota Supreme Court ruling that municipalities could not      regulate gambling institutions, including casinos and video      lottery establishments.    <\/p>\n<p>      The proposed amended ordinance was put forth by City Attorney      Justin Goetz, who has been busy in working with the Plan      Commission and City Council in updating the ordinance book      since assuming his position last summer.    <\/p>\n<p>      Under the current ordinance, gambling establishments are      confined to commercial zoning areas under a conditional use      permit, similar to restaurants, motels, and other businesses.    <\/p>\n<p>      However, in 2011, the Supreme Court sided with the South      Dakota Department of Revenue over the City of Sioux Falls as      the Department of Revenue argued that the City of Sioux      Falls ordinance on gambling establishments was invalid      because it infringed on the sovereign prerogative of the      state.    <\/p>\n<p>      While the proposed ordinance wouldnt be able to explicitly      restrict gambling establishments in commercial districts,      that doesnt mean that those establishments are going to be      able to pop up anywhere in the city.    <\/p>\n<p>      Goetz noted to the Plan Commission last week that in issuing      the ruling, the Supreme Court said municipalities such as      Watertown could effectively enact restrictions on the      placement of gambling establishments.    <\/p>\n<p>      There is still the ability of the city to determine      locations of alcohol licensees. The gambling license is      effectively attached to the alcohol license  it is a      certification attached to the alcohol license. That allows      the city to be able to regulate placement, Goetz said.    <\/p>\n<p>      According to Goetz, the proposed amended ordinance would      allow Watertown to get out ahead of any potential legal      challenge against the current ordinance brought forward by      either the state or another party.    <\/p>\n<p>      No lawsuits against the City of Watertown on the issue are      pending or currently underway, which left Plan Commission      member Dennis Arnold questioning the timing of the proposed      ordinance.    <\/p>\n<p>      (At any given time) there are a lot of court cases and      things around the county where organizations are challenging      something and it gets changed, Arnold said. I think the      residents of Watertown have liked our (gambling locations)      ordinance the way it is, or at least thats what I assume.      Nobody has challenged it. Why do we have to change it if      nobody has challenged it?    <\/p>\n<p>      While Goetz said he empathized with Arnolds point of view,      he also said that the proposed ordinance reflecting the court      ruling is an extension of the state establishing its      authority back in the 1980s when the original law cited by      the court was written, thereby not leaving it up to different      interpretations by municipalities.    <\/p>\n<p>      In interpreting the courts ruling, Goetz said, If      localities were allowed to determine where gambling      establishments could be in South Dakota, there would be a lot      of dry communities, if you will, for these kind of      establishments These forebears at the state level saw that      writing on the wall and saw that municipalities would have      issues  certain municipalities more than others. In order to      ensure that this was provided statewide, municipalities      couldnt butt in and occupy the field of state regulation      that they had set for themselves.    <\/p>\n<p>      After the first reading of the ordinance amendment occurs on      March 6, a second reading, and possible approval, may occur      at the following City Council meeting scheduled for March 20.    <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>See the article here: <\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"http:\/\/www.thepublicopinion.com\/news\/local_news\/city-council-to-look-at-removing-zoning-restrictions-on-gambling\/article_e9fec4a4-f787-11e6-bcb9-ebd4b0ae7beb.html\" title=\"City Council to look at removing zoning restrictions on gambling entities - Watertown Public Opinion\">City Council to look at removing zoning restrictions on gambling entities - Watertown Public Opinion<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> A section of a Watertown city zoning ordinance pertaining to gambling establishments could go by the wayside. The Watertown City Council is set to conduct a first reading amending Title 21 of Ordinance 17-02 removing zoning restrictions on those entities on March 6. The potential revision would put the city in compliance with a 2011 South Dakota Supreme Court ruling that municipalities could not regulate gambling institutions, including casinos and video lottery establishments.  <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/gambling\/city-council-to-look-at-removing-zoning-restrictions-on-gambling-entities-watertown-public-opinion\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[187831],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-178864","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gambling"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178864"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=178864"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178864\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=178864"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=178864"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=178864"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}