So in order for him -- listen, hold up. In order for the recorder to understand what's being said, you have to --
I wish he was right. That was three, four years ago, that people from New York coming up giving 70, 75, 80 percent which hurt everybody. So by regulating it, we can stop it and make sure that everything is fair. But you have -- and we can give you list of places that's getting -- Pennsylvania Skill, good for them. I wish that everybody will be like this. But even with Pennsylvania Skill, they have some crooked operators that are giving a lot more under the table. And I can provide them the names if they want to.
So we'll go to Member Gauthier and then Member Harrity. This is getting interesting.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you so much for your testimony and your recommendations.
I wanted to clarify. We are not talking about a regulation of the use of these machines in totality. We are talking about regulating the use of these machines in spaces that don't sell alcohol or have less than 30 seats if they do sell alcohol or anywhere that is unlicensed currently under the State Gaming Act. So given those boundaries, what percentage of your business in the City of Philadelphia does that represent?
If I understood your question correctly, in our case we have in Philadelphia maybe only three or four locations. Most of our business is outside Philadelphia. Three or four location that serve liquor --
But most of our business are the regular bodegas. They don't serve liquor. They most likely serve food but not liquor.
Sorry. In the City of Philadelphia, you're saying you have three establishments that sell liquor so like bars?
So do you under -- I just want to be very clear about what we're talking about.
And by the way, I would like to address it for a second please.
We have more. And there was a Chinese gangster that send the people to our location owned by Chinese, only owned by Chinese --
No, no. I have all the proof and I have the meeting with the detective. I talked to the District Attorney. And what he does is send people with sharp object and they just break the screen, and the screen is the most expensive part of this machine. So we are not expanding it and they're afraid of him. We know who he is.
But gangsters come in all flavors, so I just want us to be clear. But you're saying that within the City you only have three establishments that are bars so this bill wouldn't impact you that much; am I understanding that correctly or am I misunderstanding you?
No, we have more, many more. But only three or four of them serve liquor.
Oh, I'm sorry. How many do you have in the City that don't meet those qualifications?
We are relatively small in the City. We have them, many of them -- we're operating for five or six years. And many of them move to some of the new operators and they switch back to us because they realize sometimes amount of commission is not everything.
Okay. And then lastly, you talked about your workers. Can you expound on how many workers and contractors you have in totality and how many of them live in the City of Philadelphia?
Thank you for being here even with that tragedy, and thank you for testifying with us in a pretty honest way.
Thank you, Member. And thank you. I echo her concerns. For you to be here today shows your character and we appreciate your testimony. Member Harrity.
Yes. Again, just a couple more minutes. Thank you again for actually coming with some ideas of how things work. Just for a point of clarification, you said that some of these bad actors are coming in and they will upfront the 10,000 per machine, so five machines that's $50,000, which then they would not make any money on the machine until after it clears, that $50,000; is that correct on how it would go?
No, eventually they'll make it back. It will take time. In other words --
It's not a gift, but it's sort of a long-term loan that eventually will, you know.
Yeah, they're going to collect on it per week or whenever they come in and collect their money.
And then the place will not receive any other money until after that $50,000 debt is served -- no, they will?
Okay. Good. All right. Well, then I'm good. I'll wait until you come up and I can ask you the same questions. But I appreciate you, sir, coming in here today and actually having some constructive criticism and actually giving us some real information that we can actually use and some good ideas. So thank you.
Just one question. So what skills are needed to play these games?
It's a very complex question. Basically the game, it's like slot machine in the casino. You put the quarters or the dollars and you wait. You win or you don't win. Here you have to do something. You have to touch something. You have to move it up. You have to move it down. You have to select to do something. You don't have to have a Ph.D. for this, but you have physically to do something in order to win the game, you know, to have a chance to win the game. And I suggest to you guys to walk to one of the stores, ask the store owner to show them, to see, to talk to some of the people. And by the way, for the stores when they play the game, they buy some drink, they buy some sandwiches, they buy something else, you know, because they stay there for one hour and something. One more thing. As far as Pennsylvania Lottery, they're sort of concerned about it, it proved in Iowa, in West Virginia, in Georgia that those machines that have the slot machine and the lottery, the lottery numbers went up, not down, went up. And there is clear numbers available on those figures.
Thank you. So that kind of alluded to my next question. You talked about how someone plays these games. So I live in a neighborhood where these games are on every corner in every store, right. I live in North Philadelphia, not the nice part, right. Where Ms. Rodriguez talked about, I grew up going to her store. I grew up in Johnson Homes, right. So I grew up going to her store every weekend for my grandmom. So go to that store, go to another store on, you know, Taney and Ridge. I go down the block, you know, there's a gas station that has like seven or eight of these machines sitting in there. So I see these machines at every single store I go to in my community.
And every time I go to my community, I see someone playing these games. And they are in there for hours playing these games, right. And so, from a community perspective, which we all represent voters, we all represent communities, so from a community perspective, when we are trying to regulate a quality-of-life issue, right, because I've been in these stores and I've seen people -- physically you can tell they're high on whatever drugs they're high on at these machines for hours, they've dipped off, sleep, nodded, whatever. How can we as a body, as a body who is charged with legislating for the public safety and public welfare of the City, how can we regulate that? Because that's what I see when I go into the stores in my community, people standing at these machines for hours on end high off of whatever they're high off of and my son has to see that when he goes to the store with me. Why is that okay to see in our communities, in my community? Why is that okay?
First, I did not say it's okay. Secondly, I think that the biggest culprit here, the lottery, Pennsylvania Lottery. You are bombarded with ads all the time, scratch-offs and everything. And if you go to the store and see a line of people standing sometimes twice a day to get it, then you see everything (inaudible) and every application on the phone, but --
But that's true, but those are not in -- so when I go to the store to play the lottery for my mom, I'm in and out in five minutes, right. We're in and out with the lottery. The phone on my game, it's here on my phone. I'm not interacting with anybody but my phone. When I'm inside one of these establishments and I walk in, it's no longer just a me problem, right. It's a community issue. So that's I guess the question I'm trying to get at. I understand the lottery. The lottery is what it is. Folks are in and out though. They're not in the store for hours on end playing the lottery.
First, you got to remember that many of them play on a quarter. Secondly, there is probably mechanical way to do it, which would be too expensive and then they'll move to another machine or whatever. I understand your issue. I understand your concern. I don't have an answer for it. And if --
But if I could, you promised to work with us. And watch what you wish for. So we would love to hear those suggestions and take them into the regulation phase, the enforcement phase so that we hear and add that intelligence, if we could.
I appreciate all of the recommendations and all of the suggestions that you made today. It's not often that we are able to get or present problems and people come back with solutions. That doesn't happen all the time, so thank you so much for your testimony today. But just following up on Councilmember Young's question, very simply how do you recommend that some of these establishments control the loitering, control how long a person can stay in their establishment interacting with one of these games? What's your recommendation?
The only way to do it is store owners, they know the players and --
-- to have a sticker that it's limited for one hour or whatever. I don't have any concrete --
But we would assume based on today's testimony that the business owner depends on these people continuing to come in and continuing to play.
So the business owner is not going to do that. The business owner is not going to want us to regulate time. The business owner is not going to want to ask them to leave. Because as long as he's there and he's interacting with the machine, he's going to continue to put money in there, right. And so --
I think that what we should try to figure out together is how do we prevent the establishment or the individual who continues to come in for hours on end, how do we prevent them from becoming a nuisance business? Because this is what happens, in a lot of cases in a lot of different parts of the City, these machines pop up. They automatically attract more negative business. And we're not saying -- I don't think that any of the members of this Committee are saying that this is the sole reason why negative or nuisance businesses pop up in certain neighborhoods. We're saying that this contributes to it. And so, if together we figure out how do we minimize or eliminate a business becoming a nuisance in the community, then we would all live in much happier, safer neighborhoods --
I think you can't compare a casino to a local bodega or a local grocery store or a local supermarket or shopping establishment. They're not the same, and we shouldn't try to act like they are. These are very small establishments in 80 percent or more residential neighborhoods that sometimes attract nuisance activity and it interferes with quality of life. And I think that's the conversation we need to have, right. Let's be very honest. We're not saying that this is the only thing that attracts it. We're saying it contributes to it. So let us work together. Again, I'm grateful for you having come in, right. But I want us to be very honest about what the conversation is and how we need to move forward and as a Committee how we're looking to partner with people like yourself and other businesses in our communities that depend on this in order to keep your businesses supplemented in a different way. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't have a concrete answer. But as I said, the casinos when you sit in the casino and a slot machine, I agree with you most of time it's not the same crowd. But I know from past experience that people in casino lost everything and nobody was there to say, hey, hey, stop. We all have to take some personal responsibility. We're not living in a perfect world and you're right, the store owner, they don't have time. They don't have patience to watch it to see what it is. Physically the machine cannot limit you. There is not -- I mean, as I said there is a way to build the device but it will make it too expensive and then they will move to another store, you know. So somebody can move from one store to another store.
We also have to be conscious that if we expect the business owner to be the person to say to an individual it's time for you to leave, we expose that business owner to compromising their safety, right. So we have to be very careful about putting it on the business owner. We need to come up with a different kind of solution, but it can't be all on the business owner, right. I mean, they have to take responsibility but there has to be a better way to be able to get folks --
-- out of these establishments or get the machines out of the establishments.
But the player might start with one game in the store and then move to another one. So you might be minutes 18 here and 20 minutes there, so it's 19 not necessarily -- there are some 20 that have their machine and that's it, that's it, you know. But the vast majority will hop around and play different machines so they can have 20 minutes here and 20 minutes here, you know. So I don't really have the solution. But I understand what you're saying, you know. It is a concern. And the other thing is when you're in the store playing the machine, you are not outside in the street doing some worse things.
So we're going to stop the testimony on that. The worst thing is scaring me, but thank you. Thank you for your testimony and we really sincerely appreciate those comments.
You can be in touch with me any time. I'll be happy to help you, to supply you with whatever documentation I have and you'll hear the truth from me whether you like it or whether you don't like it. I'm not a politician. So if I offended anybody, I do apologize. Thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, our next witness is Anthony Giabron. And the rest of our public commenters who the Sergeant-at-Arms will bring up and sit in the seats along the rail is Akash Patel, Live! Casino, William Beck, Tang Jhen and Brian Castillo.
Thank you for your patience guys. Please come in. Please come in. (Witnesses approached Witness table.)
And will two of you come up to the mics, state your name for the record and please begin your testimony.
How are you, Councilmembers. My name is Akash Patel, born and raised in Philadelphia. I believe I'm from Mr. Jones' District, Roxborough.
Yeah, my folks, 1990. I was born moved '92. We've been running a business in Roxborough since 1998. Yeah, I just kind of wanted to come in and give my two cents on the impact that your legislation would have on families like my own, you know. I just want you to know it's not easy running a business anywhere in the country really, to be an entrepreneur. But especially in this City limits, it's a little bit more taxing literally and figuratively. In recent years, everything from the soda tax to COVID lockdowns and everything, regulations. And on top of that, cigarette tax and everything. And being in Roxborough, that puts us at especially a disadvantaged position because being so close to suburbs. So what my folks did since like '98 to now, put me through Roman Catholic, Community College of Philadelphia. It's kind of like fleeting, you know what I mean, a dream at this point because it's so difficult to run a business in this world really. So again, I think it's really important that we're here today. I think this is long overdue, but I think something that we kind of touched on is we sorely need regulation on these machines. To outright say to ban them I think is pretty disrespectful and callous. And then you're ignoring a large part of your voter base. Every face that's here right now represents a family. I don't know if you realize that, but you should. You know, it's pretty important. I also want to echo what Ms. Rodriguez said back there. I don't know if you heard or understood, but she said robberies of violence were there after the machines and they were there before the machines too. The police weren't doing anything. I also want to echo what Mr. Ari was saying. He had a robbery. The guy dropped his license he said. We had a robbery at my location like two years ago. The robber left a bag with his first and last name. The police detective never reached out to us. Do you understand what I'm trying to say here? It seems as if -- and with all due respect I don't want to sound ungrateful, I completely believe in the police. I thank them, but it seems like they're really, you know, for a lack of policing, they're making it -- do you know what I mean, they're punishing businesses that are doing their job. And I was telling Mr. Curtis, come out to where we run our place, we care about our community and put that into account. You can run these locations where it's safe for all. There can be wholesome places if done properly. That's why I was saying I think regulation is sorely needed. But to blanket ban them, I think is callous and disrespectful. Again, every face here represents a family and I think that's worth thinking about. If you have any questions, please I'd love to, you know.
I do, Mr. Chair. So should we as a city allow people to shoot dice outside of your business establishment?
That's not what I said, absolutely not. That would be dangerous, you know.
And to say that aloud is -- I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off. I'm sorry.
State lottery is a thing, you know. Like it's a -- when you were asking how do we limit somebody, well, you don't know if my income is $50,000 a year or $100,000 a year. You can't do that really, right. This is America. I have the choice to really ruin my life if I want to. There's a sign behind every single bar in this nation. Do you know what it says? If you're pregnant and you get a drink, your kid is going to be messed up, what will you be having tonight. So you really can't regulate what somebody, you know what I mean. We're not the moral police, are we?
And I get that. My point is about essentially the loitering that happens in these communities where these machines are located.
Absolutely. And to echo Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Ari, the police aren't doing their job. If by show of hands ask these people here how many times have called the police for nuisance and the police have left their establishment without doing a goddamn thing, excuse my language. That's the real issue there. We call the cops. They don't do anything. So what are we supposed to do about that? Why are we punishing honest-working, tax-paying constituents for the inability to police the police?
Have you ever called the police for people loitering in your store playing these machines?
-- I have. But isn't it important if the police don't do anything? Isn't it their job? If I'm asking for assistance, right, like hey, man, I need this guy to leave, he's not playing the machine, he's just hanging out, he won't leave, he's just whatever the hell it is. And we live in Roxborough and we're blessed that it's a smaller district, so our police presence is a little bit higher.
But I'm just saying, you know what I mean, we're blessed, so our nuisance rate is much lower. But again, that's because we have a higher police rate. All these places that have, you know what I mean, a lot more nuisance, ask them how many times the cops are patrolling their neighborhoods. It's a policing issue and regulation issue.
And so, one thing as a body what we're trying to do is trying to again curb those issues. We're not the police, right. So we're not being -- we can't go to your establishment and remove these folks, but we have the authority to do --
Again, what we have the authority to do with your telling us this, we can now take this -- you saw the Police Commissioner, right? So --
-- he's heard these issues that we have been saying. So as a body, we can work with the police on the policing models in our communities because I have an issue with that too, not --
-- but in our entire communities. But again, when we are charged with trying to regulate the public safety and the public welfare of a community, how can we do that in an efficient manner without I guess trying to -- without harming your business --
Yes. I also want to -- we both agree that we care about the community. This can bring adverse and negative effects into the community if not done responsibly and that's why I think regulation is sorely needed, desperately needed, you know. And just a blanket ban again is just not the answer. That's all I'm saying.
And I can tell you being in my community, the stores that I've gone to have not done it responsibly at all.
But why should I be punished for that though; is that fair? Should I be punished for that?
And you know, throughout all industries, every industry, whether you're a landlord, whether you're a tenant, everyone is always punished for the bad actors in that industry. And --
I disagree with that. That's your opinion. I disagree with that. And that's what I'm saying with the other thing, they didn't even have data. If you have data on the nuisance spots, why don't you crack down on those places. Again, come out to my establishment. I would love for you to come out. I'll give you 8 bucks each. Put it in the machine, 9 have a good time. See what kind of 10 environment is there. See what 11 kind of environment we can bring if 12 done responsibly. If those places 13 aren't doing it, then those l&i's 14 need to be pulled. They need to be 15 punished. 16
I can 17 tell you being an attorney and 18 representing my businesses, my 19 clients, right, for the most part 20 are small businesses. They have told me time and time again that they are -- that the good actors are always punished for the bad actors. That's how legislation is made to be quite honest. But someone bad comes and someone has an epiphany or someone has an experience with a bad actor and then they come to us to regulate that, right. Although the entire industry -- and everyone may not be bad actors. But the bad actions that happen kind of usurp everything and --
I'll say it again, that coming from you is very callous and disrespectful to every single face here that represents a family, represents a voting base, tax dollars, that we're honest- working, hard-working people that you're talking about affecting. I don't think you realize that --
I'm not saying that everyone is a bad actor. What I'm saying --
-- but that's fine. So you're telling me to accept it. You're telling me to accept the fact that the actions of a few will impact all -- sorry.
No, please continue. The actions of a few impact all. It happens in many industries in the City.
So you're telling me that everybody follows the rules but the actions of a few, we're all going to be punished now. That's so wrong. And that's fine if you feel that way. It's a free country and our votes will dictate that. I disagree with you, sir.
We can walk down the stores and we can see what happens in these stores.
Okay. That's duly noted. We'll make the arrangements. I'll go with you.
But we want to thank you for your testimony. Are there any other questions? (No response.)
But we got the point you were making. With that, Anthony Glass, who do we have next?
Mr. Chairman, our next speaker will be Live! Casino. (Witness approached Witness table.)
Certainly. My name's Thomas Diehl. I'm the Vice- president of Legal at Live! Casino and Hotel Philadelphia and I'm a prior state gaming regulator --
Certainly. Thank you, friend. I'm a prior gaming regulator from the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board. And I simply wanted to read a brief statement and certainly be available for any questions you may have afterwards, and I'm going to cheat with my specs here. I'm here to testify on behalf of Live! Casino of Philadelphia in opposition to Bill 17 240010 just before us today. It was only a year ago that the City Council passed legislation to ban purported skill games that are proliferating across the City and the Commonwealth. But now, through this bill the Council would be authorizing potentially 6,000 new devices throughout the City, more devices by the way than both Philadelphia City casinos combined. This bill does not establish a regulatory oversight or taxing authority and will undoubtedly lead to problems that should be resolved in advance. On top of that, I purport that the timing is imprudent now when the bill appears to be inconsistent with current cases awaiting a decision from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in which the City has intervened. It is due to follow brief. Additionally, the Governor's recent comments directing the legislature to adopt legislation to tax and regulate these machines through the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board has created momentum to address this issue on the Commonwealth level. So why would we adopt rules today that would expect to be preempted soon by the state. It would appear the City would be wise to wait and see how those two major factors play out before taking these steps to affirmatively allow these purported skill games within the City limits. When the Commonwealth legalized casino gaming years ago, it set up a rigorous process to establish a framework for licensure, taxation and regulation. And we are confident that we'll do so again regarding any legislature concerning the devices that are issued today, this thorough framework protecting integrity of operations and the welfare of your constituents. In our opinion, this bill 21 does not establish an adequate regulatory structure, and that the City currently does not have the infrastructure to enforce or regulate potentially 6,000 games as it may be proposed by this bill. Further, to go ahead of legislation that is forthcoming from a Supreme Court decision is just simply not a good idea. We stand ready to work with the Philadelphia's Delegation along with other legislative leadership in the Governor's Office to work through the policy decisions necessary to properly tax and regulate these games in future parity with the casino's gaming regulation and taxes. That's the end of my statement.
So I understand if I heard you correctly, that one of your problems is that this legislation will create 6,000 opportunities to do gambling, correct?
As opposed to banning them totally. Duly noted. And then the second part of it is, is that we should wait to allow our partners at the state level to figure it out for us downstream, correct?
No, I don't think that's the case. I think there are means for City Council to address some of these issues. The same questions I've heard you raise during this meeting regarding enforcement, regarding how the revenue and the machines will be distributed, these are all valid questions. But the bill that's before us today doesn't address those. My only recommendation is that you would get answers to those questions that you're asking, I think appropriately so, reduce those answers into a written framework, regulatory framework, including taxation before you move ahead.
Well, duly noted what you said. Thank you for your testimony. But I believe the opening of these types of opportunities for skills games happened in 2017?
We've been waiting and waiting and waiting for help from up at the State that we have not received. As they pontificated and figured it out and all of that good stuff, 50,000 machines have found their way into our neighborhoods. So you say that thank goodness that the Governor is riding to our rescue. I would argue the chicken came before the egg, that when we introduced this he decided that Philadelphia is serious about these regulations and not to be dumped upon in this manner. So it's not going to be perfect. Please give us some suggestions on how to amend it. We want to work with you. We want to work with people who have testified, but we want to keep it moving. We are not going to sit back another year where people get killed, where people are hunted. We're not doing that. I don't know where you live, but I don't live far from these machines. And I'm saying to you if not now, when?
So we appreciate how you operate. You operate, you went through the process, you went through regulations, you have security, you have good lighting, you have a payout process. We respect all of that. You employ thousands of people. So we value what you're saying to us. But if we don't help ourselves, we're not sure that after another seven years we'll even have -- that legislative body is divided up there. It's hard to get laws to pass. And if we sit back on our laws, on our heels and do nothing, we can expect more to say of what we've had in our neighborhoods. Now, there are a lot of good people that operate correctly. And unfortunately, this is spilling over on them. The willingness of all of us to listen to what they have to say and figure this out is earnest, but we ain't playing. So I have a Mayor that promised cleaner, greener and safer. Cleaner, greener and safer, and this is the part of the safety part. So we're going to continue. Hopefully you will provide us some assistance in figuring this out. We welcome your ideas. But if we sit back and wait, how long?
Again, I appreciate and respect everything you said, sir, and all the questions that have been raised. And my only submission, response -- again, I agree that you have a tremendous responsibility ahead of you with respect to public safety. I agree it's not easy. I just simply would submit it's something that I would put the framework in place first with regulation and taxation before moving forward with the bill.
So God willing, we will motivate our friends at the state level to do just that. And if I woke up one day and we were superseded by state regulations that tell us where these machines are, it'll be a good day for me. But let me say this: If we don't do for ourselves, we can't expect others to do for us.
I don't disagree with that, sir. But I would submit that doing for yourself would include setting up a regulatory framework in advance. I'm not asking you to wait for somebody else to do it for you, and we would lend our assistance as would others in any way that we can. But nevertheless, I would do that part first before legalizing games.
So I appreciate your comments. Duly noted. But let me say this: We've been doing this legislation for at least two years now, and this is the first time I met you. Member Lozada.
I think the fact that we've been having this conversation for two years -- the fact that we've been having this conversation for two years is a problem. I don't know if you know, but I learned from the Chairman here last week that there were 15, bills related to gaming 14 machines at the state level. 15
15 to 17 18 bills related to this same topic 18 at the state level. That is a problem. And so, it is through conversations like this that we create the framework. It is through public testimony. It is through conversations with our residents that we are able to create frames, right, or plans on how we continue to resolve this. We have a responsibility to our neighbors, to our constituents to report when there are nuisance businesses or nuisance activities happening that impede on the quality of life in our Districts. And so, we want to work with our state legislators, right. But often times, as you can see in this case, we have been having conversations for two years. And again, we have a responsibility on the ground to respond to the needs and to the quality of life of the people that we represent. And so, we have to start somewhere. We can't continue to sit back and wait. And hopefully through these conversations, we are going to be able to move the needle forward locally or we will push our counterparts at the federal and state level to do something quickly.
Yes. Tom, I was actually pretty amazed that you were actually against this bill. Can you clarify the 6,000 machines you say that this would create? Where are they coming from?
Yes, potentially. What we're looking at was publicly available information on the number of liquor licenses within the City. I believe that came down to somewhere around 1300 and then looking at the potential number of machines per, I think that --
Well, I can tell you they already have the machines. Most of the bars have the machines in them, any neighborhood you go into. So I don't see where it would be creating 6,000 more. The number that we're concerned about is that 50,000 and up machines in our neighborhoods where we also live and have to deal with neighbors coming to our house who say, hey, my husband just put his whole paycheck in the poker machine at the takeout beer store because he went around to get a six-pack, started drinking the six-pack while he was there, caught a buzz, had no -- was willing to stick his whole paycheck in there. That's the kind of things we're trying to stop. We're trying to stop the exploitation of our residents. As you said yourself, Live! Casino, you guys have a lot of machines in there, right?
A lot of machines where people are going to gamble, which is their right, legally, licensed. As my partner here has said on numerous occasions, security, lighting, different things that make it a little harder for somebody to get over on one of our residents --
-- unlike walking in my neighborhood on Kensington and Allegheny four blocks to their house with a young buck following close behind ready to bang them on the head after they just finally hit a machine that they put their whole check into. They're the kind of things that we're trying to stop. We're trying to stop the nuisance and the drug dealers that hang out there waiting for one of these addicts that are playing on the machine to hit so that they can get a couple extra dollars from him for the merchandise he's going to buy. That's why I was really, really confused when you were against this bill. Now, I get the fact that you're saying regulations. We're all for regulations. We're all for taxation so that the City gets its little piece of the pie. That's fine. What we're tying to do is get rid of the machines and the illegal establishments that are doing this in our neighborhoods. If they want to go to a casino, then they should go to a casino and gamble and get the right odds and get the right payouts and have at least an opportunity on how the machines are regulated that they actually may hit and make a couple of dollars rather than put their whole check into it.
I thank you for sharing that, because again we mentioned earlier that the dialogue is essentially what we're here for. And I think everybody benefits from it. I certainly have benefited from what I've heard. If I could respond at least from my experiences some of the issues that you've raised. When you're discussing trying to do something about what we refer to as problem and compulsive gamblers, I think you gave the example of the husband that goes and get the six-pack. Again, from the gaming side, at least I'm familiar with the Gaming Control Board, what it had in place and continues to this day is a means to be self-excluded so you would be able to put yourself on a list that would keep licensed entities from the industry like casinos from marketing them. But again, from that was a framework that was put in place before we opened the casinos, before they were legalized and it works pretty well. And --