Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Game Rooms topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lubbock County adopts restrictive game‑room rules after hours of debate; critics call move a partial legalization
Summary
After a long, sometimes contentious debate, the Lubbock County Commissioners Court adopted policies regulating game rooms in unincorporated areas effective Jan. 1, 2025, setting licensing, spacing and enforcement rules and limiting the number based on population. The measure passed 3–2 after multiple amendments.
The Lubbock County Commissioners Court adopted a new policy regulating game rooms in unincorporated county areas, voting 3–2 to approve the measure as amended Tuesday, Oct. 14.
Supporters said the ordinance provides tools to reduce public‑safety risks while opponents said it effectively legitimizes an activity they want banned. Public commenter Cindy Acuff urged strict controls, saying she had found “over 85 known game rooms within Lubbock County” and linking them to violent incidents. The court debated where game rooms may operate, how many permits to allow, enforcement responsibility and a $1,000 nonrefundable application fee.
The adopted policy restricts game rooms to properties with frontage on state highways or frontage roads, requires background checks and applications for owners and employees, sets distancing requirements from residences, schools, playgrounds and regular places of worship, and limits the number of licenses based on unincorporated population (a formula discussed during the meeting). The court amended several sections during the hearing to: replace sole enforcement by the Precinct 1 constable with the Lubbock County sheriff or the sheriff’s designee for enforcement oversight; clarify inspection language; count unincorporated population when computing the 1-per‑30,000 cap; and add a regular‑place‑of‑worship and residential‑neighborhood distance standard.
The court also approved an amendment to remove language that had said administrative inspections "are not to search for criminal activity," after discussion that violations under the ordinance can be criminal offenses under state law and that officers may need to act on observed crimes. County counsel and the district attorney’s office participated in drafting and advised that the Local Government Code (subchapter E on game rooms) controls where conflicts exist.
Judge Parrish, who offered multiple amendments and said he opposes game rooms in principle, framed the vote as a compromise within state law limits: "I am 100% and completely against game rooms in any form or function," he said, but added the amendments were intended "to get it down to as little as we can." The ordinance is set to take effect Jan. 1, 2025.
The hearing featured detailed discussion of enforcement capacity. The constable’s office told the court inspections could require a periodic commitment “anywhere from 2 or 3 hours to 10 or 20” depending on the number of licensed locations and operational hours; the attorney general’s office and the sheriff’s department were cited as potential supporters for enforcement actions. Several commissioners warned the ordinance could prompt litigation; the court adopted boilerplate language that the local government code will control in any conflict.
What happens next: the county will publish the amended ordinance, begin implementing the permit process (including the nonrefundable $1,000 application fee), and the sheriff or the sheriff’s designee will be designated to perform enforcement and compliance checks. The court did not list specific timelines for permit issuance during the meeting; staff were asked to work with the county attorney and the offices charged with permitting on procedural details.
