City Council at Loggerheads Over Smoking Ban Repeal Alterations

Specter of lost revenues pit against perceived legal ambiguities

SHREVEPORT, La. – Tensions flared at a recent city council meeting over the nettlesome issue surrounding the complexity of the local smoking ban repeal. The decree, which was rescinded a year ago, allows casinos to accommodate smoking clients in 75% of their gaming areas. However, this apparently straightforward provision has nonetheless sparked dispute over its application, particularly in the context of video poker casinos located at truck stop locations.

Is a Casino, a Casino?

The Airport Casino, situated on Monkhouse Drive, is one such establishment to have capitalized on the repeal and currently accommodates smoking patrons. Notwithstanding, City Attorney Marcus Edwards has posited that despite its moniker, the state law does not recognize Airport Casino as a bona fide casino. Instead, it deems such facilities as video poker gaming outlets within a truck stop. Edwards was unequivocal in his interpretation, asserting “I think it’s clear that a truck stop is a truck stop and not a casino.  I think it’s clear that state law says that a land-based casino is that one institution down in New Orleans on Canal Street.”

Casinos Cry Foul Over Reinterpretation

The owner of Airport Casino, Nathan Hicks, cogently argues that excluding his and similar establishments from the smoking provision would materially impact their bottom lines. With regards to his own establishment, Hick estimates it stands to lose approximately 35% in revenue, translating to circa $400,000 annually. “We just try to run video poker and not having the ability to smoke on a percentage of our floor presents to us a significant decrease in revenue,” he explained, adding that Cash Magic had also signaled that it would have to shutter its facility due to the attendant revenue decline.

City Council Split Over Ordinance

The issue took centre stage at the City Council’s May 14 meeting, with the proposed ordinance that aimed to clarify the definition of a land-based casino failing to secure approval. While some council members lent their support, others voiced their opposition, creating a division over the matter. Councilman Grayson Boucher expressed his ambivalence saying, “I have real mixed emotions about this one because I’m listening to what Nathan is saying and what other casino truck stop people have told me, and I may just actually disagree with Mr. Edwards as well.”

On the other hand, Councilman Gary Brooks articulated that his original intent was to extend the allowance to the likes of Bally’s and Sam’s Town, referring to them as the two casino institutions. Councilman James Green waded in, issuing a sage metaphoric reminder that semantics do not change the nature of things, “You can call yourself a duck and still be a rabbit,” he illustrated.

In the final tally, the ordinance was defeated by a vote of 4 to 3. Council members Brooks, Taliaferro, Jackson, and Councilwoman Bowman sided against the ordinance, leading to its ultimate failure. As such, the question about “what’s in a name?” in context to a casino continues to linger unanswered, further muddying the waters in the local gambling and hospitality sectors.