D.A. Seeks State Opinion on Oxnard Casino Plan : Government: He asks the attorney general whether city officials can OK a card club without voters’ approval. The council will consider the issue Tuesday.

Ventura County Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury has requested a state attorney general’s opinion on whether the city of Oxnard can allow big-time gambling without taking the issue to the people as a ballot referendum.

In a letter to Atty. Gen. Daniel E. Lungren, the district attorney said he thinks Oxnard would violate the legislative intent of state gaming law if the city approves operation of a large card club without the consent of voters.

The Oxnard City Council will consider the card club issue Tuesday and is expected to either reject gambling clubs outright, invite promoters to submit casino applications, or place the issue on the Nov. 2 ballot.

City Atty. Gary Gillig has said a ballot referendum is not required as it would be in most California cities, because Oxnard allowed gambling before the current state gaming law went into effect in 1984.

Gillig has said the new state law specifically exempts such pre-existing ordinances from its requirements.

But in his May 26 letter to Lungren, Bradbury said he “is troubled by the notion that a ordinance which was clearly intended to allow for charitable fund-raising purposes . . . (could be) now used as a vehicle to create large-scale, for-profit card room casino operations without the prior consent of the people of Oxnard.”

A spokesman for the attorney general’s office said the informal opinion requested by Bradbury probably will not be issued until late August. In any case, Gillig said that Oxnard would not be bound by it.

Attorney general’s opinions “are persuasive but not binding,” Gillig said. “He’s an attorney and I’m an attorney, and you can’t get the ultimate viewpoint unless you go to court.”

Gillig said he has no second thoughts about his position that the City Council can unilaterally allow card clubs.

“I stand behind what I’ve stated,” he said. “I think this ordinance will sustain this activity.”

Bradbury, who has said he opposes card casinos as breeding grounds for crime, could not be reached for comment.

Generally, card club initiatives have not been popular with California voters. Five casino referendums were defeated this month, including four in Los Angeles and Orange counties. But Inglewood voters approved a card club last November.

According to Gillig, the Oxnard City Council can approve card clubs simply by amending the existing ordinance, which allows gambling only when it is sponsored by charity, fraternal, labor and religious groups for their members and guests.

Though a large new Oxnard casino would be open to the general public--and would far exceed the size of charitable games now allowed--Gillig said amending the existing ordinance would be sufficient.

“There’s nothing in the (current) ordinance that talks about number of tables,” Gillig said.

In an interview last month, however, a state gaming control lawyer told The Times that Oxnard might “violate the legislative intent” of the 1984 law if the city approves a casino without a referendum.

“It would seem to violate the legislative intent, which says that card clubs are not authorized and (the issue) has to go to the people,” Deputy Atty. Gen. Paul Bishop said. “To the extent that they’re expanding the scope of the ordinance, I could see how the people could be concerned.”

But Bishop said his office, which acts as counsel to state gaming officials, bows to local jurisdictions’ authority on such matters.

“Normally it’s the city attorney that advises the locals on an ordinance,” Bishop said, “and to my knowledge we’ve never tried to litigate whether an ordinance was properly passed. It is presumed to be valid unless someone does challenge it.”

Although some Oxnard council members have said they accept Gillig’s interpretation of state law, Councilman Andres Herrera said Friday that he will raise the issue at Tuesday’s hearing.

Three promoters have said that if the City Council decides it wants to have a casino, they will seek an exclusive permit to operate a card club. They say a 50,000-square-foot casino would yield 300 to 600 jobs and $500,000 to $1.2 million a year in gambling taxes.

But increasingly vocal opponents maintain that a card club would lure criminals, tarnish the city’s image and encourage habitual gamblers.