Appleton pub denied license for devices that police say are illegal gambling machines
APPLETON — A new business that tried to license five amusement machines had its application denied by Appleton police, who determined four of the devices were illegal gambling machines.
The same or similar devices, though, are in operation at other businesses in Appleton, Jason Lachance of De Pere told the city's Safety and Licensing Committee.
"I think everybody here has been to a bar, a restaurant, whatever, that has them in there in the city of Appleton," Lachance said. "I know I have."
Appleton requires applicants for a mechanical amusement device license to identify the brand/name and type of device.
Pizzeria Pub & Bar, 1200 N. Sharon St., listed five devices. Only a dartboard passed the police review.
"It's been a relatively recent change where the application has been altered to include requesting enough information to frankly figure out what in the world individual machines are," Assistant City Attorney Zak Buruin said.
Buruin acknowledged that illegal gambling devices are operating in the city, but he said that was an enforcement issue, not the licensing issue before the committee.
On a 5-0 vote, the committee upheld the denial of the license. It will be considered Wednesday by the Common Council.
According to the Wisconsin Department of Administration, video gaming devices are not legal anywhere in the state, except in authorized tribal gaming facilities. "Bars and taverns may offer five or fewer devices for amusement only, meaning they must be free to play or not provide anything of value as a prize," the DOA says.
Pizzeria Pub & Bar sought approval for five devices:
"Dart Board"
"Golden Fortune"
"Fusion 2"
"Fire Link"
"Fusion 2"
"Based on my knowledge and research into gambling machines, all of these listed machines (except the dart board) are illegal in Wisconsin" under state statutes 945.03, 945.035 and 945.04, police Lt. Ben Goodin said in a memorandum to the committee.
Goodin said the devices also are illegal in Appleton under ordinance 9-52(3).
In upholding the denial, the committee indicated that Pizzeria Pub & Bar could reapply for a license for the dartboard, but that would require new $25 application fee. The initial fee of $125 — $25 each for five devices — pays for the city staff review and is not refundable.
Earlier this month, the Common Council voted 13-2 to deny a liquor license for Delaire's coffee and board game bar, 823 W. College Ave., due to concerns the business might install illegal gambling machines.
Before the vote, business owner David Boulanger of West Bend told the council that he agreed in writing that Delaire's wouldn't have any illegal gambling machines.
"If the council wants to include that as a condition on my license, I have no problem with that," Boulanger said. "Yet despite this, I'm still being denied, while I personally identified 15 other businesses within a half mile of this City Hall that currently have gambling machines and are operating without issue."
Council member Chris Croatt said Boulanger's statement was consistent with what Boulanger told the Safety and Licensing Committee "since they changed their business plan."
Boulanger's statement didn't sway council member Katie Van Zeeland.
"The applicant did provide a model business that advertises gambling on their Facebook page, and that, for me, is the biggest reason why I'll vote against this," she said.
Council member Denise Fenton also was unconvinced.
"I have no confidence that the applicant is telling us the truth about his intentions," Fenton said at committee.
Contact Duke Behnke at 920-993-7176 or dbehnke@gannett.com. Follow him on Twitter at @DukeBehnke.
This article originally appeared on Appleton Post-Crescent: Appleton pub denied license for devices over illegal gambling concerns
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Critics want U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi disbarred, but at what cost?
The Florida Bar on Friday dismissed a complaint brought by a coalition of about 70 liberal-leaning and moderate law professors, attorneys and former Florida Supreme Court justices against U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. The complaint accuses Bondi, Florida's former attorney general, of violating her ethical duties in her current job. As the Miami Herald reported, the complaint claims Bondi 'has sought to compel Department of Justice lawyers to violate their ethical obligations under the guise of 'zealous advocacy.'' While Bondi may have violated ethical rules — that's unclear — disbarring a U.S. attorney general is extreme and could be a slippery slope. The move would no doubt be seen, perhaps rightfully so, as political retribution, and that would only add more fuel to the raging dumpster fire of our partisan politics these days. The complaint outlined three instances in which the coalition said Bondi's conduct violated Florida Bar rules and longstanding norms of the Justice Department. In one instance, they said, she fired a seasoned immigration lawyer who the Trump administration said sabotaged the case in the mistaken deportation of a Maryland man to El Salvador. Another instance cited: A longtime federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia resigned rather than carry out enforcement orders that she said were unsupported by evidence. A third example: Several senior federal prosecutors in New York and Washington resigned after they refused to follow a Justice Department order to drop corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams. The Bar rejected the complaint Friday, as it had done with two previous complaints about Bondi by the same group, and cited a jurisdictional issue. It said it 'does not investigate or prosecute sitting officers appointed under the U.S. Constitution while they are in office.' The group includes two retired Florida Supreme Court justices, Barbara J. Pariente and Peggy A. Quince. Make no mistake: Bondi is deeply political. And she has shown her commitment to carry out President Donald Trump's agenda at all costs. Bondi has made it clear that the president's priorities and the DOJ's mission are, in her view, one and the same. This is a break in the fire wall that has long existed between the presidency and the Justice Department. But politicizing the law — or the Bar — isn't the answer, no matter which side is doing it. Ethical standards must be enforced. That's a cornerstone of the legal profession. But it's hypocritical to condemn Bondi's politicization of the DOJ while attempting a similar act via the Bar. We recognize that Trump's Justice Department is by design, political. And Bondi's actions have been extremely partisan — including when she placed the DOJ attorney on leave in the case of the Maryland man who had been wrongly deported a man to El Salvador. 'At my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States,' Bondi said in a statement. 'Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences.' The Florida Bar exists to ensure the integrity of the legal system is protected – not act as a political referee. It's understandable that some feel justified challenging Bondi's standing as a lawyer. Bondi's conduct does warrant scrutiny, and she holds an enormous amount of power as the U.S. attorney general. But the uncertainty of the times shouldn't be a reason to use the law to punish ideological opponents, even if we think the other side does it, here to send the letter.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
'Bar-B-Cast' on why there's reason to feel bad for White Sox fans after succession plan reveal
(This article was written with the assistance of Castmagic, an AI tool, and reviewed by our editorial team to ensure accuracy. Please reach out to us if you notice any mistakes.) Chicago White Sox fans can expect a significant but somewhat gradual change in the team's ownership, based on the podcast's discussion. From Jake Mintz and Jordan Shusterman of Yahoo Sports' "Baseball-Bar-B-Cast" podcast, here's a summary of what fans should know and what to expect: Jerry Reinsdorf's exit plan is finally official — but not immediate Jerry Reinsdorf, who has owned the White Sox for 45 years, has established a clear succession plan for selling the team. The path is mapped out but doesn't take effect right away. The earliest possible transition to new ownership is 2029, and it could stretch as late as 2034. Advertisement Justin Ishbia, the brother of Phoenix Suns owner Matt Ishbia, is set to become the White Sox's principal owner, according to legal arrangements revealed this week. He already holds a minority stake and will have the option to buy the majority stake from Reinsdorf starting in 2029, or absolutely by 2034. Sorry, White Sox fans, as for now, not much changes The current public messaging is that nothing significant changes for day-to-day fans or for the on-field product until at least 2029. In the short-term, Ishbia will infuse some cash and begin slowly getting involved, but the team's operational control still rests with Reinsdorf. Advertisement Reinsdorf is 89 years old, so it makes sense for him to set up this transition. He's finally making concrete plans for when he's no longer in charge. "He clearly sold this to Ishbia because he likes Ishbia or thinks Ishbia will do a good job or whatever," Mintz said. "That was the pick. He's making the pick, not someone else. That's important to Jerry Reinsdorf. He is lucky here that he has made this choice before he dies. A lot of people, most people die before 89, and I feel bad that some White Sox fans, in fact will die before this ownership group changes hands because the quickest it could change is 2029." Said Shusterman, "If he's doing great and the White Sox are winning, guess what? Jerry's going to keep on owning the team. Now if the White Sox are still losing in 2029? Very possible, considering how deep of a hole they are in, then, I mean, I don't know, maybe he then finally decides, 'All right, your turn, Justin.'" Advertisement While there's no reason to expect rapid on-field changes or increased spending immediately, there is a sense of long-term optimism. The new owner comes from substantial means and chose the White Sox over other available MLB franchises, indicating belief in the franchise's potential. For more of the latest baseball news and debates, tune in to "Baseball-Bar-B-Cast" on Apple, Spotify or YouTube.
Miami Herald
2 days ago
- Miami Herald
Critics want U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi disbarred, but at what cost?
The Florida Bar on Friday dismissed a complaint brought by a coalition of about 70 liberal-leaning and moderate law professors, attorneys and former Florida Supreme Court justices against U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. The complaint accuses Bondi, Florida's former attorney general, of violating her ethical duties in her current job. As the Miami Herald reported, the complaint claims Bondi 'has sought to compel Department of Justice lawyers to violate their ethical obligations under the guise of 'zealous advocacy.'' While Bondi may have violated ethical rules — that's unclear — disbarring a U.S. attorney general is extreme and could be a slippery slope. The move would no doubt be seen, perhaps rightfully so, as political retribution, and that would only add more fuel to the raging dumpster fire of our partisan politics these days. The complaint outlined three instances in which the coalition said Bondi's conduct violated Florida Bar rules and longstanding norms of the Justice Department. In one instance, they said, she fired a seasoned immigration lawyer who the Trump administration said sabotaged the case in the mistaken deportation of a Maryland man to El Salvador. Another instance cited: A longtime federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia resigned rather than carry out enforcement orders that she said were unsupported by evidence. A third example: Several senior federal prosecutors in New York and Washington resigned after they refused to follow a Justice Department order to drop corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams. The Bar rejected the complaint Friday, as it had done with two previous complaints about Bondi by the same group, and cited a jurisdictional issue. It said it 'does not investigate or prosecute sitting officers appointed under the U.S. Constitution while they are in office.' The group includes two retired Florida Supreme Court justices, Barbara J. Pariente and Peggy A. Quince. Make no mistake: Bondi is deeply political. And she has shown her commitment to carry out President Donald Trump's agenda at all costs. Bondi has made it clear that the president's priorities and the DOJ's mission are, in her view, one and the same. This is a break in the fire wall that has long existed between the presidency and the Justice Department. But politicizing the law — or the Bar — isn't the answer, no matter which side is doing it. Ethical standards must be enforced. That's a cornerstone of the legal profession. But it's hypocritical to condemn Bondi's politicization of the DOJ while attempting a similar act via the Bar. We recognize that Trump's Justice Department is by design, political. And Bondi's actions have been extremely partisan — including when she placed the DOJ attorney on leave in the case of the Maryland man who had been wrongly deported a man to El Salvador. 'At my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States,' Bondi said in a statement. 'Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences.' The Florida Bar exists to ensure the integrity of the legal system is protected – not act as a political referee. It's understandable that some feel justified challenging Bondi's standing as a lawyer. Bondi's conduct does warrant scrutiny, and she holds an enormous amount of power as the U.S. attorney general. But the uncertainty of the times shouldn't be a reason to use the law to punish ideological opponents, even if we think the other side does it, too. Click here to send the letter.
