Lakewood voters won’t decide until November whether to ban casinos in their city. But make no mistake, some city officials are already campaigning against the ban – which would deprive Lakewood of about 7 to 8 percent of its operational budget revenues.

Unfortunately, the city is choosing the wrong place to make its case so early in the campaign – in the ballot measure’s official explanatory statement.

The statement’s language, which was adopted Monday by the Lakewood City Council, tells voters that the four minicasinos generated $2.9 million in revenues in 2007.

Interestingly, the statement notes that “pursuant to state law, this revenue shall be used primarily for enforcement of the provisions of state gambling regulations.” However, city officials keep pointing out that the casinos generate little crime. By that reasoning, the city can’t be using this revenue “primarily” to enforce gambling regulations but for other operational needs.

A case can be made that voters should know that the city stands to lose so much money should the ban go into effect – even though it substantiates the argument that Lakewood has become too dependent on gambling money.

But the explanatory statement also seems to make a claim that is flat-out wrong – that the city can control where the casinos are located through its zoning laws. It even implies that those casinos can be limited to “within a half mile of the I-5 corridor.”

Like any business, a casino would not be able to locate in neighborhoods zoned for residential. But the city could not prevent one from going into virtually any site that is zoned for commercial development. State law prohibits cities that allow gambling from creating casino ghettos.

Lakewood city officials need to recognize that depending so heavily on gambling revenue is not a healthy way to run a city. For one thing, gambling historically goes through periods of highs and lows. There’s some indication, in fact, that gambling may be starting to taper off, possibly due to the faltering economy.

Even if the casino-ban initiative fails in November, if any of Lakewood’s casinos were to close on their own, the budget hit would be just as painful as if they were shut down by the voters.

Lakewood needs to start weaning itself from gambling. Officials should tell voters that even if the initiative fails, the city will start planning to do without gambling money by using an increasing smaller percentage of it each year for ongoing operational needs. Then set a date for pulling the plug on casinos. Casino workers will have time to find other work, and the city can gradually shrink its own workforce through attrition.

But the city shouldn’t use the ballot explanatory statement to make the case – and a misleading one at that – for defeating the initiative. Leave that to the opposition campaign – such as the Viewpoint on the next page – and to the “anti” statement in the voters pamphlet.