Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2004

Home

Z.B. December 24, 2003 -- Page 3 prohibiting anyone from keeping or maintaining simulated video gaming de- vices kvitkin village limits. ~ written, the ordinance prevented "any person, f'm-n, or corporation" fi:om keeping "any video poker machine; video or mechanical slot machine; video or m~chanical bingo machine; or other device which involves any game of chanqe or amusement based up'on poker, blackjack, dog racing, horse racing, craps! or any card or dice game." Sirpico owned and operated a sports bar located in the village. The bar mainr~ained two video slot machines. A.';fter removing the machines, Serpico sued. The court ruled in the village's favor', S.:erpico appealed, arguing the ordinance was unconstitutional. DEGi$ION: Affirmed. ~e ordinance was not unconstitutional. Gambling was traditionally closely regulated, and sometimes even forbidden. Although some videogames were protected because their play involved many~ more concepts than those simply related to-the game itself, the ordinance prohibited video poker, blackjack, dog racing, or similar traditional gambling games. One who played these gan'ting devices had no control over the sequence of events in the game and did not exert any type of strategy, technique, or choiCe that could transform the video game into a medium of expression impli- catin"g constitutional protection. There was a more than viable concern on the part of the village to control and regulate illegal gambling and gaming by prohibiting simulated video de- vice~. These video devices were shown to lead to an increased tendency for people to violate gambling laws. Although the ordinance also applied to private citizens, it was enforced only in bars and other public places. But this did not make the ordinance ille- gal. :~.~e problem of illegal gambling was most prevalent in public places, not in private homes. Consequently, the ordinance was not unconstitutional. Citation: Serpico v. 14llage of Elmwood Park, Appellate Court of lllinois, 1st Disi., 6th Div., No. 1-02-1762 (2003). see also.. American Amusement Machine Association v. Kendrick, ]J 5 F. Supp.2d 9431(2000). see also: Sanders v. Acclaim Entertainment [nc., 188 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (2002). Ordinance ~ Corporation wants to develop manufactured home park Ordinance allows manufactured homes, but not manufactured home parks in district MICHIGAN (10/14/03) --Lamotte Coach Light Corporation owned an 80- aCr.e parcel of land zoned for agricultural-residential use. ~t wanted to use the land to develop a manufactured home park. iAlthough the Township of Lamotte granted the zoning change of the 143