Your point being?

We're not going to pretend that restricting zoning for nonrestricted gaming to projects that build 100 rooms or more isn't protectionism, because it clearly is.

We don't believe the best way to limit who can set up a slot parlor is to build a bunch more hotel rooms, when we're having trouble filling the ones we've got.

But we do believe that limiting rooms is the nearest thing Douglas County and Carson City have to statutory authority. In counties that have more than 100,000 people, Nevada requires anyone seeking a nonrestricted gaming license to build 200 rooms. It follows that the county would believe it is legal for them to require 100 rooms in a county of 50,000 people.

Douglas County is working on the second reading of an ordinance that would require someone seeking a zone change to build a hotel as well.

The folks who are in favor of the ordinance aren't hiding their identities. They make it known that they represent those casinos who are already in place or who have already received their approvals.

It would be foolish for them not to support such an ordinance, which is obviously in their self-interest.

The real issue is the state of gaming as a source of tax revenue in Douglas County and beyond. The steady decline in revenue for the Stateline casinos shows that tourists are no longer paying our bills as they once did.