But in general I think this is a win for any other potential room operator. That certainly could be challenged in court. The city council can choose to limit the number of 'these' types of business and/or have the opinion that the location is not right for that type of business. It's the other rooms that have shills, are 'charging' for drinks or flat out raking pots that are cracking the door for state regulation of some sort. I don't know of any posts that would suggest that TCH or Prime Social are handling the 'poker' in violation of the law. If the DA 'is' an elected official, he could continue to make waves somehow if he chooses without approval of the council. The city DA could go to the state and ask them to step in somehow, but since the state doesn't appear to want to do anything about this right now anywhere else that's probably a long shot. it all comes down to the bylaws of the city. If there's basically no discussion, council can go straight to a vote. The first time on the agenda is for discussion and the 2nd time is for the vote.
Those folks probably contribute to the DA's campaign fund, eh? At a minimum it was on the agenda for at least two meetings as is typical for city councils. Well, they had their chance the first time around as I'm sure there was a public hearing on the occupancy permit (maybe). As I think was previously stated, the room is 'near' an area where some of the residents/churches don't want it.
