Lakewood’s policy toward gambling can be described in a nutshell: Use zoning restrictions to discourage new casinos from going into “nice” neighborhoods while preserving the revenue it gets from existing casinos in “not-so-nice” neighborhoods.

But that policy has the unfortunate side effect of keeping out legitimate eating and drinking establishments that don’t offer gambling.

Here’s why. To keep out new casinos, the city prohibits restaurants, bars, taverns and banquet rooms of more than 10,000 square feet from neighborhood commercial zones on the theory that no casino less than that size would be viable. Casinos are required by state law to offer food service.

The down side? Washington CEO magazine quoted Lakewood City Attorney Heidi Wachter in August as saying, “We occasionally have to tell a big restaurant like the Olive Garden that we don’t want them in our town center.”

Not entirely correct. Lakewood wants more restaurants, and it certainly could use the revenue. But in order to keep casinos out of the town center, Lakewood also has to keep out large restaurants. That’s bad news for parts of Lakewood that might want to attract a restaurant, and it does nothing to keep out a 9,999-square-foot casino.

City officials aren’t oblivious to the trap they’ve set for themselves. They’re trying to decide whether to extend the zoning restrictions that were adopted in March.

The X factor in this discussion, of course, is the casino-ban initiative that will be on the Nov. 4 ballot. If Lakewood voters approve it, the existing casinos would have to shut down and no new ones would be allowed. If the initiative fails, Lakewood officials plan to lobby the Legislature in January for authority to zone casinos. That’s not allowed under current law – and for good reason.

State legislators have recognized that giving city officials power over where casinos are located is authority that invites corruption. It’s not hard to imagine casino interests spreading their considerable dollars around to “convince” city officials to give them special treatment.

It’s unlikely the Legislature would give Lakewood casino-zoning power anyway. The Indian tribes are likely to fight it because more cities might want to allow nontribal gaming if they knew they could control where casinos went. And the tribes have considerable influence with Democrats, who are expected to retain control of both state houses.

Ironically, that influence largely derives from the tribes’ financial support – and their gambling interests.

Public policy in Lakewood is already being shaped by its dependency on casino revenues. City officials need to drop the restrictive zoning laws – which are only keeping out large restaurants – and start planning on how to operate the city without gambling money, whether the voters force them to or not.