Club Owners Gamble With New Measure : Card clubs: A proposal to expand a Sunset Boulevard facility will appear on the ballot. The city would make money, but opposition is building.

By KEN ELLINGWOOD

Jan. 7, 1993 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

WEST HOLLYWOOD — From cops to cards. How fast the ballot issues change in West Hollywood.

Barely recovering from a bitter fight over whether to create a city police force, voters now must weigh a legalized-gambling measure similar to one crushed at the polls in 1990 and sponsored by the same group of investors.

The City Council voted 4 to 0 Monday to put a scaled-down version of that initiative on the ballot this year, despite an opinion by the city’s lawyer that the petition demanding a vote was legally flawed.

“Let’s get it resolved and get it over with,” said Councilman John Heilman, who called the flaw a “technical defect.”

The measure’s sponsors, the owners of the Cavendish West Hollywood club on Sunset Boulevard, gathered enough signatures to force a vote, but the petitions submitted did not have the wording of the proposed ordinance attached, a violation of state election law. Sponsors said the portion containing the wording was mistakenly torn off before the signatures were turned in to City Hall.

The measure would allow the private bridge-and-rummy club to move into expanded quarters at a La Brea Avenue site and add pan, a popular game related to rummy. The initiative allows for as many as 99 tables, about half the number sought by the same group of investors two years ago. The proposal bars poker, which is played in other area card clubs, such as the Bicycle Club in Bell Gardens. Sponsors said they have no plans to add “super pan,” a game similar to baccarat that is also popular in other clubs.

The proposed club would differ from actual casinos in that players would bet only against each other and merely rent seats from the house. The measure directs 10% of club earnings to the city treasury.

As a condition of the council’s approval, the initiative’s sponsors will be required to pay the costs of a special election, which are likely to exceed $15,000. The election has not been scheduled.

“I’m not a seer, but I have high hopes,” said Jerry Gould, one of the group of investors that own the 32-year-old club. “We certainly feel the climate in the city today is much different than two years ago.”

Gould said that, this time, “we’re not going to spend a lot of money. It’s not a high-powered campaign.” His group spent more than $250,000 in the previous campaign, including producing and mailing a pro-initiative video to 10,000 homes in the city.

It didn’t help. The measure, opposed by the City Council and just about every important group in town, lost by a 3-1 margin. Opponents warned that gambling would breed crime and worsen traffic. Feelings continue to run high on the issue, and the measure will probably meet strong opposition again.

One opponent, Jeanne Dobrin, criticized the council’s decision to put the card-club measure on the ballot as ignoring potential costs of oversight and police protection. “I think that their tongues were hanging out for the money,” she said.

Supporters are banking on two new conditions to help their cause: a more modest card-club proposal than before and the city’s fiscal crisis, which officials have predicted will last at least one more year. Supporters estimate that the city would earn $750,000 to $1 million the first year.

“We want to add one game and make a lot of money at it, and make a lot of money for the city,” Gould said.