My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
RES 88038
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1980-1989
>
1988
>
RES 88038
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/18/2012 3:34:53 PM
Creation date
12/3/1999 11:32:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
1/19/1988
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON <br /> <br /> ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br /> <br /> RESOLUTION NO. 88-38 <br /> <br /> FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING PASTIME POOL LICENSE <br /> REVOCATION HEARING <br /> <br />WHEREAS, at its meeting of January 19, 1988, the City Council <br /> reviewed the staff report (SR 88:18) of the City <br /> Attorney regarding the suspension of the cardroom <br /> license for Pastime Pool; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held at which time <br /> testimony was taken from those involved; <br /> <br />NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON <br />RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: <br /> <br />Section 1: The City Council of the City of Pleasanton hereby <br /> makes the following findings of fact: <br /> <br /> 1. Jay Nelson, the part owner of Pastime Pool, was <br /> present on the morning of December 29,1987 with <br /> three male companions. <br /> <br /> 2. The doors to Pastime Pool were locked and the four <br /> men were playing poker. <br /> <br /> 3. One of the men was an employee of the bar. The <br /> other two men were patrons of the establishment. <br /> <br /> 4. There were poker chips by each individual player <br /> and playing cards on the table. <br /> <br /> 5. The men were playing a card game not permitted by <br /> City ordinance. <br /> <br /> 6. The allegation that the poker chips were not <br /> representing money value is inherently unbelievable <br /> for the following reasons: <br /> <br /> a. The game of poker is virtually never played <br /> for chips alone. <br /> <br /> b. The game of poker is meaningless unless played <br /> for money because the sanction of money losses <br /> controls the style of play. For example, loss <br /> of money controls bluffing and, conversely, <br /> loss of the ante controls the conservative <br /> play of those who would wait for an extremely <br /> good hand before betting. <br /> <br /> - 1 - <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.