Andrea Gillis, interim director of the city’s planning and urban design department, explained at last week’s Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee (ZOAC) that the City Plan Commission authorized a public hearing in 2021 to consider amending Dallas’ development code “with consideration to be given to requiring a specific use permit for commercial amusement (inside) limited to a poker room.”
However, Gillis said this use is applicable only to facilities open to the general public. Poker rooms in Dallas are generally private and charge a membership fee, so they can't operate as a commercial amusement and would be illegal under state law, she said.
The idea has been for the city to find a path to allow private game clubs to operate in Dallas while abiding by state law, which prohibits Texans from “keeping a gambling place.”
According to state law, “A person commits an offense if he knowingly uses or permits another to use as a gambling place any real estate, building, room, tent, vehicle, boat or other property whatsoever owned by him or under his control, or rents or lets any such property with a view or expectation that it be so used.”
There’s an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section if the gambling occurs in a private place, no person receives any economic benefit other than personal winnings and, except for the advantage of skill or luck, the risks of losing and the chances of winning are the same for all participants. Under state law, a private place means a place to which the public does not have access. However, it excludes places like streets, highways, restaurants, taverns, nightclubs, schools, hospitals, and the common areas of apartments, hotels, motels, office buildings, transportation facilities and shops.
Here’s what city staff proposed: Under a new land use, a private game club would be a private place open only to its members that primarily offers competitive gaming facilities, including games of skill, such as ax throwing, darts or shuffleboard. Any games played with cards, dice, balls, or any other gambling device as defined by Texas penal code are allowed only as accessory uses, meaning the facilities can’t be used mainly for these things. “It can’t be a main use. It can’t be a sole use. It can’t be a primary use,” Gillis said.“If poker’s allowed, why not slots and craps?" – Tom Dupre, resident
tweet this
In this scenario, members are defined as people joining the private club, and membership must be for a minimum of one year and also be limited in number.
Additionally, under this proposed new land use, all the economic benefits, other than personal winnings, must come from the main use. Basically, a prospective poker room would need to make most of its money from non-poker attractions such as the aforementioned ax throwing, darts and/or shuffleboard.
Tom Dupre, a resident who spoke at the meeting, told ZOAC that what the city is considering is reckless.
“This plan seems to help address the provisions of making these clubs private, but this model could be interpreted also as operating an illegal lottery,” Dupre said. “This land use seems to be a Band-Aid approach to figuring out how to commercialize gaming laws that were designed to protect individuals hosting a friendly game in their private homes.”
He added: “If poker’s allowed, why not slots and craps? As long as all proceeds are distributed to the players and not the host, they, too, would be legal in Dallas under this land use since the same laws affect all games of chance.”
He urged the committee to let the courts settle this issue. Dupre said if the land use does pass, there needs to be distance requirements so the clubs aren’t too close to schools or residential areas. “The city cannot afford another half-baked solution to allow illegal gaming,” he said.
Former City Council member and local attorney Philip Kingston also spoke against the proposed land use, but for different reasons. “I’m here to speak as strongly as I can against this proposal and the reason is not because I don’t want poker rooms,” he said. “I think poker rooms are excellent uses of Dallas real estate.” He said it was a travesty when the city attorney’s office began trying to shut the clubs down.
“The reason I’m against it is because staff has created an unnecessarily complicated regulatory system for this,” he continued. “We already have a classification called private club that does everything staff is proposing here except that it allows for normal stuff like serving alcohol and food. They’re proposing some kind of poker room world where you can’t have food and drink. It doesn’t even sound fun.”
He said the reason he knows the private club land use allows gaming like poker is that this was the classification the city attorney’s office was trying to move poker rooms to before it put the kibosh on them.
“The other reason I know that a private club can support gaming is because every country club in town has had a poker game for a hundred years,” Kingston said. “So, the only thing that staff’s crusade against poker rooms has done is limit legal poker to wealthy people in country clubs. My clients let Black people play poker. What a shock.”
He suggested that ZOAC recommend regulating poker rooms the same way they regulate private clubs.
ZOAC member Brent Rubin pointed out that the committee could get advice only from the city attorney’s office through a private executive session. ZOAC is not allowed to hold executive sessions. So, if the committee wanted an executive session over this matter, it would have to be held by the city’s plan commission.
Bertram Vandenberg, chief of general counsel for the city attorney’s office, said staff did consider the private club land use, but this zoning usually has an outdoor recreation component. For country clubs, as an example, there’s a golf course, Vandenberg explained.
Committee member Nathaniel Barrett asked why poker or other gambling would have to be limited to an accessory use. Vandenberg said state law dictates that you can’t make money from gambling, so poker would have to be a small piece of the business.“The reason I’m against it is because staff has created an unnecessarily complicated regulatory system for this." – Philip Kingston, attorney
tweet this
With all these restrictions, a question arose: Where exactly would these private game rooms be allowed? “That is the challenge,” Gillis responded. “It is a challenge at this point as to where that would go.”
ZOAC member Enrique MacGregor asked city staff to put it plainly: What type of business is this land use trying to allow and what businesses does it aim to get rid of? “I don’t think we’re trying to get rid of anything,” Gillis said. “I think we’re just trying to be more clear on what can be done.”
Rubin suggested that the land use be sent to the city’s plan commission for consideration with a recommendation that it not be adopted. “Despite best intentions, we are working in a legal landscape that is far more complicated than originally contemplated back in 2021,” he said. Rubin's motion passed unanimously.
Barrett seconded Rubin’s motion to send the proposal to the city’s plan commission recommending not to adopt, but for a different reason. “I don’t think this proposal needs to be made at all,” he said. “We have a use in the code already called private club that seems to check all the boxes here. So I'm of the opinion that there's no need for this new use at all because it serves no purpose not already fulfilled."
Reached for comment after the meeting, Barrett said it seemed next to impossible to operate a poker room under the current proposal. “You look at the restrictions on the things that can be the main use, it's huge,” Barrett said. “Like it can't have a restaurant, it can't be a bar, it can't be many, many other things.”
He added, “It kind of leaves you to ask yourself ‘Well, what could it be?’ and the answer is staff didn’t really know.”
