Now we know Dotty’s has been a gaming menace since 1995

The Nevada Gaming Commission is considering changing a regulation and making it retroactive, something it has never done before, and which is practically guaranteed to get the state sued over a property rights issue.

Doesn’t make a lick of sense.

Over the past 15 years, commissioners have approved 53 restricted Dotty’s locations, all nearly identical and designed to appeal to women who feel safe inside, don’t get hassled by anyone and are comfortable with the grandmotherly décor and their ability to park right outside the door. They drink, they smoke, they eat a few snacks and, yes, they gamble.

But apparently, the dangers of Dotty’s taverns are so threatening to gaming regulation in Nevada that some gaming commissioners are considering their first retroactive regulation amendment.

Proposed changes include requiring things Dotty’s doesn’t have. A bar you can sit at. A kitchen open a certain number of hours. A restaurant of a certain size. A floor plan of a certain footage.

Prodded by Station Casinos, the Nevada Resort Association is taking the lead to stop the proliferation of Dotty’s and taverns like it.

But if they make their regulation retroactive, it won’t be the NRA or Station Casinos paying the bills to fight a lawsuit. It will be the state. Actually, it will be you. And you’re already paying to fight a similar federal property rights lawsuit Dotty’s has filed against Clark County because the county also made its restrictions retroactive, with some exceptions.

Dotty’s has been approved by gaming regulators since 1995, yet now it’s a problem because Station Casinos doesn’t like the competition. Executive Vice President Scott Nielson admitted as much during his relentless grilling by Gaming Commission Chairman Pete Bernhard on July 28.

“Walk me through the regulatory reason why we should care about the size of a bar as gaming regulators?” Bernhard asked Nielson.

Or whether there’s a kitchen? Or kitchen hours? Or number of seats?

Nielson, the protector of regulation integrity, stressed his concern is whether the law was being followed properly and regulation definitions were clear. But finally he conceded his concern was the competition to Station Casinos.

If the regulation is changed and made retroactive, Dotty’s owner Craig Estey can either close his doors or retrofit his female-friendy Dotty’s operations. The cost? An estimated $5.7 million to remodel 53 restricted locations across the state. Restricted locations have 15 or fewer slots.

An amendment written by Gaming Control Board Chairman Mark Lipparelli would establish standards, but it would not be retroactive, so it’s the least restrictive proposal.

Versions submitted by the Nevada Resort Association and the Nevada Tavern Owners Associations, new best friends in the gaming world, would make the requirements retroactive, with exceptions. Properties licensed before Feb. 1, 2000, would be exempted, but those licensed since then would not.

Another version by Commissioner Tony Alamo also includes retroactive provisions.

Informed the state probably would get sued over the retroactive language, Alamo said, “I don’t run my life worrying about lawsuits. I run my life and my decisions based on what I think is right. And that is why we have the attorney general’s office to defend us when we think we are right.”

Have you guys (and they are all guys) noticed the headaches over at Clark County over Jim Rhodes’ property rights being upheld by a federal judge? Do you remember the Pappas property rights case?

Alamo favors retroactivity, and Bernhard doubts any regulation change is needed. That leaves three commissioners as deciding votes. John Moran and Joe Brown are attorneys who know about property rights and the law. The third is former state Sen. Randolph Townsend, a businessman knowledgeable about overregulation.

Are any of you guys listening to Gov. Brian Sandoval’s urging that regulations not be impediments to get Nevada working again? You should.

Jane Ann Morrison’s column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. Email her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call her at (702) 383-0275. She also blogs at lvrj.com/blogs/Morrison