Bingo, Lions, and Bizarre Blue Laws: The curious history of some of Piedmont's crazy ordinances
From backyard chickens and pet lions to bingo nights and bicycle licenses, Piedmont's history is filled with unusual laws—and residents who challenged them.
In July 1977, Piedmont City Councilman Frank S. Anderson had a warning for his fellow council members:
"We don't want to turn this into a bingo town."
The occasion was a request from Corpus Christi School to hold weekly bingo games as a fundraiser. What seems today like a harmless school activity was, at the time, the subject of a statewide debate about gambling, charitable organizations, and the responsibilities of local government.
Bingo had only recently become legally permissible in California under certain conditions, and cities throughout the Bay Area were scrambling to determine whether they should allow it and, if so, how closely it should be regulated. Piedmont responded with an entire chapter of its municipal code dedicated to bingo. The resulting law contains 21 sections governing everything from permits and recordkeeping to operating hours, reserved seating, alcoholic beverages, and the number of nights games may be held. But bingo was hardly the first seemingly ordinary activity to attract the attention of Piedmont's lawmakers.
Since its incorporation in 1907, the city has adopted ordinances governing chickens, bees, dogs, bicycles, house numbers, fortune-telling, trees, parking, and even lions.
Some regulations emerged from genuine public-safety concerns. Others were intended to preserve Piedmont's residential character. Still others resulted in spirited public disagreements, legal challenges, and occasionally humorous newspaper coverage. Together, they offer a fascinating glimpse into the changing priorities of a small California city.
When Bingo Was Illegal in California
For much of California's history, playing bingo for money or prizes was generally considered an illegal form of gambling. That did not mean people stopped playing.
Churches, charitable organizations, veterans' groups, and social clubs frequently organized bingo games to raise money. In many communities, local police tolerated these events, particularly when proceeds supported worthwhile causes.
An August 25, 1976, Oakland Tribune article titled "Bingo: Will the Laws Catch Up?" described the situation throughout southern Alameda County. Bingo games were being held regularly despite restrictions under state law, with enforcement varying considerably between communities. The article reported that several churches in Hayward were conducting games and that a Newark fraternal organization's bingo operation had recently been shut down following a complaint.
The legal landscape changed on June 8, 1976, when California voters approved Proposition 9. The measure amended the state Constitution to permit the Legislature to authorize charitable bingo through city and county ordinances. The proposition passed with approximately 70 percent of the statewide vote. But there was an important catch: California's voters had not legalized bingo everywhere. They had allowed individual cities and counties to decide whether to authorize it under state-established conditions.
The implementing law, California Penal Code Section 326.5, limited bingo to qualifying organizations conducting games for charitable purposes. Local governments suddenly faced a decision: prohibit bingo or establish a system of permits, restrictions, and oversight. Read about California Proposition 9, 1976
1977: Corpus Christi Wants to Play Bingo
The debate reached Piedmont in the summer of 1977. On July 6, the Oakland Tribune published an article titled "Opening the Door for Bingo," reporting that Phil Quittman, chairman of the bingo committee at Corpus Christi School, had appeared before the Piedmont City Council. Quittman requested a temporary permit to conduct weekly bingo games at the school. He also asked the city to legalize bingo for qualifying nonprofit organizations. The potential revenue was significant for a school fundraiser.
Quittman anticipated approximately 200 players and estimated that the games could raise $500 per month.
The proposed arrangement was straightforward. A $2 donation would entitle a player to one bingo card, with additional cards available for 50 cents each. Proceeds would be spent at the discretion of the school principal. Quittman also assured the council that parking would not be a problem. Vice Mayor Anthony Loughran, presiding while Mayor Clark Galloway Jr. was away celebrating his wedding anniversary, expressed reservations. Loughran was not necessarily opposed to bingo itself. His concern was that some operators might take a disproportionate share of the proceeds, leaving relatively little for the sponsoring charity.
Councilman Anderson favored strong regulations and issued his memorable warning against turning Piedmont into a bingo town. City Attorney George Peyton Jr. was directed to prepare an ordinance governing the games. Interestingly, the council was also considering restrictions on home-based businesses during the same meeting. The proposed rules addressed everything from automobile repair and merchandise sales to signs, business space, and permit fees. Even as the city considered allowing charitable gambling, it was carefully defining which commercial activities could take place inside Piedmont homes.
Piedmont Gives Bingo Its Own Chapter
Piedmont eventually adopted Ordinance No. 350 N.S., which became the foundation of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code.
The ordinance did more than permit bingo. It established a detailed regulatory system supervised largely by the city's police chief. The published code still contains 21 separate sections addressing the operation of bingo games.
Among its provisions:
A permit is mandatory. Qualifying charitable organizations must obtain authorization from the police chief before conducting games.
Only one bingo day per week is allowed. Games may not be conducted more frequently than one calendar day in any consecutive seven-day period.
No late-night bingo. Games are prohibited between 11 p.m. and 10 a.m.
Alcohol is prohibited in the playing area. Intoxicated individuals also may not participate.
No ordinary reserved seating. The ordinance provides an exception for people with disabilities.
Financial records must be maintained. Bingo profits must be kept in a separate account, with detailed records available for city inspection.
The city may inspect games. Police, fire, and building officials are authorized to inspect operations under the ordinance.
Parking and noise can threaten a permit. The police chief may revoke authorization when games create specified neighborhood problems.
The financial provisions were especially strict. Section 24.13 provides that violating its requirements for separate accounts and financial records is a misdemeanor, with penalties specified in the ordinance of up to $500, six months in county jail, or both.
The law also requires separate permits for different locations and establishes procedures for denials, revocations, hearings, and appeals. One small historical detail helps date the chapter's origins: Section 24.5 contains a provision concerning bingo permits issued before March 1, 1978. Although the published code identifies Ordinances 350 and 358 N.S., the precise adoption dates should be confirmed against the original ordinance records.
For a school fundraiser, the rules might seem unusually extensive. But Piedmont's approach reflected the concerns that accompanied bingo's legalization: ensuring that the games genuinely benefited charitable organizations rather than becoming commercial gambling operations. Read Piedmont Municipal Code, Chapter 24: Bingo
Bingo Was More Than Gambling to Its Supporters
Across the East Bay, the legalization debate revealed that bingo meant different things to different people.
For some, it was a source of revenue. For others, particularly older residents, it was an important social activity. In November 1977, the Oakland City Council responded to public pressure by agreeing to allow qualifying nonprofit organizations to conduct bingo twice weekly rather than once.
According to the Tribune, council members received numerous calls and letters from residents who emphasized bingo's social benefits and its contributions to parochial school budgets. Piedmont, however, retained its one-day-per-week restriction.
By November 1979, bingo had become part of Piedmont's social calendar, with American Legion Post No. 514 hosting a steak dinner and bingo event at the Veterans Memorial Building, 401 Highland Avenue. What had prompted considerable legal debate only a few years earlier was now an established community fundraiser. Nearly 50 years after city officials worried about becoming a "bingo town," the tradition continues with the Piedmont Recreation Department's PRD 801nce/Month: Drag Queen Bingo on November 13, 2026, bringing a modern twist to the city's long history with the game.
Beyond Bingo: Piedmont's Other Unusual Laws
Bingo may have earned its own chapter of the city code, but it is far from the strangest subject to appear in Piedmont's legislative history. Some of the city's earliest and most entertaining controversies involved its four-legged—and occasionally feathered—residents.
The Great Piedmont Chicken Wars, 1911–1921
Long before residents argued about backyard vegetable gardens, Piedmont was debating whether chickens belonged in a fashionable residential community. The controversy became especially heated in June 1911, when Mayor Hugh Craig and local real estate dealer and chicken enthusiast Walter E. Logan clashed over an ordinance prohibiting chickens and their coops within 20 feet of residences. Logan's son-in-law, attorney Carlos White, successfully requested reconsideration, but the revised ordinance expanded the restrictions to other types of poultry. On June 22, 1911, the Board of Trustees gave the ordinance final approval, prompting an angry confrontation at City Hall.
The dispute escalated into a physical confrontation—or something close to one.
Accounts differed about exactly what happened. Some witnesses claimed Craig grabbed Logan by the throat; others described a less dramatic encounter.
According to the June 24, 1911, Oakland Enquirer, Logan stormed into the council chamber demanding to see the newly approved ordinance. After reading it, he accused Craig of deliberately targeting him, declaring, "You're a deceitful man, Craig." The confrontation reportedly became physical, although witnesses disagreed about exactly what happened. Some claimed Craig grabbed Logan by the throat and held him over a railing, while others described a less dramatic encounter. Craig later joked, "Logan's neck was so thick I couldn't very well get my fingers around it, for my hands are small."
The feud continued outside City Hall. Logan relocated his chicken house from beneath a neighbor's dining room windows toward Vernal Avenue, near Oakland Avenue, and began constructing a tall fence. Some neighbors called it a "spite fence," while Craig suggested it violated Piedmont's regulations against billboards. Logan insisted the fence merely protected his chickens from cold northern winds. Ironically, the relocated chickens were apparently outside the ordinance's restricted area, and Craig acknowledged that Logan was operating within the law.
The chicken debate persisted for years. In August 1912, Piedmont considered requiring coops to stand at least 50 feet from residences, although Trustee Farr pointed out that some lots were only 25 feet wide. By 1917, rising food prices prompted efforts in Berkeley, Oakland, and Piedmont to relax poultry restrictions. Nevertheless, an August 29, 1921, Oakland Enquirer article titled "Fashionable Families Frown on Fowl" described restrictions on keeping chickens, pigeons, and rabbits within 50 feet of neighboring residences, humorously suggesting that backyard poultry was incompatible with Piedmont's afternoon teas and elegant dinner parties.
The dispute reflected a recurring tension in Piedmont's history: the desire to preserve quiet, attractive residential neighborhoods versus residents' rights to use their property as they wished. What began as a disagreement over backyard chickens escalated into a confrontation between a mayor and a resident, accusations of personal retaliation, a disputed fence, and years of debate over municipal authority. In Piedmont, even chickens could become a political controversy.
The Frogs That Almost Inspired an Ordinance, 1911
Not all of Piedmont's unusual animal stories resulted in laws.
In April 1911, the San Francisco Examiner reported that residents were complaining about the nighttime singing of frogs belonging to Adolph Uhl. Uhl apparently regarded the frogs as talented performers whose vocal abilities he had carefully cultivated. His neighbors disagreed.
The newspaper described their threats to ask the city trustees to regulate the creatures' nightly performances—or compel Uhl to eat the frogs. The story appears to have been written with considerable humor, and no enacted frog-singing ordinance has been established from the available evidence. Nevertheless, it captures how strongly residents could feel about unwanted neighborhood noise.
When Bees Attacked a Cat, 1924
On May 6, 1924, the Oakland Tribune reported an unusual legal dispute over beekeeping in Piedmont. F. M. Lee, who lived at 225 El Cerrito Avenue, challenged a city ordinance concerning the keeping of bees within 600 feet of a neighboring residence.
Neighbors complained that Lee's bees were creating a nuisance.
One woman alleged that the bees attacked her pet cat and interfered with the animal's ability to eat. She also complained that bees entered her sleeping porch at night, disturbing her rest. Lee brought county bee inspector Cary W. Hartman as a witness. Hartman disputed the nighttime allegation, arguing that bees did not fly at night.
Lee contended that the ordinance was unconstitutional.
The case was postponed, and the available clipping does not establish the eventual court decision. The story illustrates how small neighborhood conflicts could become disputes over the city's power to regulate private property.
Six Feet Could Land You in Court, 1926
One Piedmont contractor was apparently so confident that he had done nothing wrong that he willingly surrendered to the police. In March 1926, Oakland contractor Charles A. MacGregor challenged Piedmont's building setback requirements after constructing a house at 106 Olive Avenue, near Oakland Avenue.
According to the city's building inspector, R. H. Barrett, the house left only approximately two feet of side clearance where a six-foot setback was required.
Rather than quietly resolve the matter, MacGregor welcomed the opportunity for a legal test.
The Oakland Tribune reported that he surrendered himself to the authorities and arranged for his attorney to challenge the ordinance. A follow-up article on April 3 described arguments over whether Piedmont's setback requirement conflicted with state law.
The City That Tried to Keep Private Schools Out, 1955
In 1955, Piedmont was involved in a significant California Supreme Court case concerning its authority to exclude private schools from residential neighborhoods.
The Roman Catholic Welfare Corporation sought permission to construct an elementary school next to Corpus Christi Church.
Piedmont denied the permit because its zoning ordinance permitted public schools in Zone A but prohibited private schools. At the time, Zone A encompassed approximately 98.7 percent of Piedmont's land area. On October 27, 1955, the California Supreme Court ruled, by a 4–3 vote, that Piedmont's exclusion of private schools under these circumstances was unconstitutional.
The court concluded that the city's zoning distinction was arbitrary and unreasonable as applied to the proposed school. The decision allowed the Corpus Christi project to proceed. A July 19, 1956, Oakland Tribune article reported plans to open the new school with six grades.
The same school that fought Piedmont's zoning restrictions in the 1950s returned to City Hall in 1977 to request permission to hold bingo fundraisers.
In both cases, Piedmont's effort to preserve local control encountered an institution seeking permission to serve its community. Read the 1955 California Supreme Court decision
Bicycles Need Licenses—and Riders Might Need a Test, 1959
In November 1959, Piedmont adopted a bicycle licensing ordinance.
According to the November 20 Oakland Tribune, bicycle owners would be required to pay a 50-cent annual licensing fee beginning January 1, with license plates valid for two years. The newspaper reported that Piedmont's ordinance closely resembled one already used in Berkeley.
What makes the regulation particularly interesting is how much detail survives in Piedmont's published bicycle code. Chapter 4A contains rules concerning bicycle registration, equipment, and operation. Its provisions include possible examinations of applicants, requirements for bells or horns, restrictions on sirens and whistles, and prohibitions against racing and trick riding.
Under the published code, riders could even face a test demonstrating reasonable knowledge of the rules and the ability to control a bicycle. The code's later fee language differs from the original 1959 newspaper announcement, illustrating how these regulations were amended over time.
Whether the city currently administers the old licensing and examination system is a separate question; the provisions' appearance in the published code does not establish present-day enforcement. Read Piedmont City Code, Chapter 4A: Bicycles
Homeowners Required to Display House Numbers, 1960
Even house numbers became the subject of a City Council debate.
On October 7, 1960, the Oakland Tribune reported that the council had approved the first reading of an ordinance requiring house numbers to be visible from the street.
Police and fire officials argued that inadequate numbering made it difficult to find homes during emergencies.
Council members rejected the idea that curb numbers alone would satisfy the requirement because parked cars could obscure them. The discussion eventually allowed numbers on lawn signs or other visible locations. The requirement was practical, but the newspaper's account shows how the city considered even the smallest details of residential property.
Simba: The Lion Who Changed Piedmont's Laws, 1966
Perhaps the most extraordinary animal ordinance in Piedmont's history resulted from a real lion living in a residential neighborhood.
In 1966, two UC Berkeley graduate students, Art Quaife and Pete Clay, kept a young lion named Simba at their home at 1143 Winsor Avenue. They had acquired Simba from a Los Angeles animal supplier and regarded the lion as a household companion.
The arrangement attracted attention after neighbors reported the animal and concerns arose about public safety. Police Chief Lou Guider reported that Simba had escaped over a fence and was caught by high school boys. On April 18, 1966, Piedmont's City Council adopted an ordinance banning lions. The next day's Associated Press reports described Simba's owners as determined to fight the prohibition.
Quaife and Clay insisted their pet had never harmed anyone and argued that the young lion was affectionate and manageable. Piedmont officials viewed the situation differently. The council considered Simba a potential danger, regardless of whether the animal had already injured anyone. The case drew national attention.
Newspapers across the country reported the unusual spectacle of a residential city legislating against a single neighborhood lion. Piedmont's ordinance did not immediately resolve the matter. Subsequent articles followed Simba's temporary stay at an SPCA facility and eventual relocation to Berkeley, where neighbors again raised concerns.
By July 1966, newspapers reported that Simba had grown substantially larger.
The surviving accounts contain some inconsistencies—including references to Simba as both male and female—but they agree on the central facts of the controversy. Piedmont's published restrictions on dangerous wild animals eventually encompassed far more than lions, including elephants, bears, hippopotamuses, rhinoceroses, tigers, wolves, and certain primates. The law was not written merely because the council imagined someone might want to keep a lion.
No Sunday Auctions in Piedmont, 1934 and 1951
In June 1951, Piedmont's City Council moved to strengthen restrictions on auctioneers following the sale of the home and furnishings of attorney Archer Zamloch at 555 Blair Avenue. According to the June 22, 1951, Oakland Tribune, the auction intensified council members' concerns about auctioneers bringing truckloads of additional merchandise into residential neighborhoods, creating disturbances, attracting crowds, and causing traffic congestion.
On June 21, the council gave preliminary approval to an ordinance increasing the daily auctioneer license fee from $25 to $200—an eightfold increase—and prohibiting auctions on Sundays and legal holidays. The ordinance was reportedly passed the following month, according to the July 20 Tribune. Interestingly, Piedmont's current Municipal Code attributes its Sunday auction prohibition to a May 1934 ordinance, suggesting an earlier restriction may already have existed. Although the relationship between the two ordinances remains unclear, the 1951 newspaper reports reveal the specific neighborhood controversy that prompted the council's renewed action. Newspapers did not show anything for 1934. Read Piedmont Municipal Code, Chapter 12, Section 12.1
Fortune-Telling at Oak Knoll—and the Palmistry Shop Piedmont Outlawed, 1905–1963
Fortune-telling was once part of Piedmont's social scene. On June 12, 1905, the Oakland Enquirer and Oakland Tribune reported that Mrs. Frank C. Havens entertained approximately 50 guests at an outdoor luncheon at Oak Knoll, the family's private Piedmont estate. Following the meal, guests enjoyed music and fortune-telling. Yet nearly six decades later, Piedmont took a very different approach.
On December 17, 1962, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 234 N.S., prohibiting paid activities including astrology, palmistry, clairvoyance, crystal gazing, phrenology, and even necromancy.
A February 16, 1963, Oakland Tribune article reveals that Piedmont actually had a palmistry business. Peter and Mary John operated the city's only palmistry shop at 1321 Grand Avenue and challenged the new ordinance in court. The couple argued that no complaints had been filed against them and that they already held a city business license valid through June 30. Nevertheless, Superior Court Judge Lyle E. Cook refused their request to block enforcement of the law, which had taken effect January 16, 1963. Although the article does not establish whether their business prompted the ordinance, it reveals that Piedmont's restrictions directly affected an existing, licensed establishment.
The legal landscape changed in 1985, when the California Supreme Court ruled in Spiritual Psychic Science Church of Truth, Inc. v. City of Azusa that broad prohibitions on paid fortune-telling violated California's constitutional free-speech protections. Remarkably, Piedmont's 1962 restriction remains printed in Municipal Code Section 12.5.1, although its presence does not establish that it remains enforceable.
These restrictions are especially interesting as historical evidence of changing attitudes toward business, religion, personal expression, and public morality.
When Teenagers' Parties Became a City Council Issue, 1999
By the late 1990s, Piedmont was considering a different approach to neighborhood disturbances: charging responsible property owners for police responses to disruptive parties. In July 1999, the Oakland Tribune reported that city officials were considering an ordinance designed to discourage large gatherings involving underage drinking and repeated police intervention.
The proposed regulations would allow the city to recover expenses incurred in responding to problem parties. City officials argued that responding to disruptive gatherings required substantial police resources. However, residents and council members raised questions about whether parents could be held responsible for gatherings that occurred without their knowledge.
Mayor Patty White supported recovering police costs but wanted the ordinance's language clarified. The council temporarily shelved the proposal for further work.
Piedmont subsequently adopted Ordinance No. 608 N.S. in September 1999, establishing provisions for recovering certain police-service costs associated with problem gatherings. Once again, a neighborhood concern had resulted in a detailed municipal regulation.
Also related to teens, June 1954:
SEC. 12.2 CURFEW-MINOR UNDER EIGHTEEN NOT PERMITTED IN PUBLIC PLACES AFTER 10:00 P.M.; EXCEPTION Every person under the age of eighteen years who loiters in or about any public street or other public place or any place open to the public in the City, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and the time of sunrise of the following day, when not accompanied by his parent, guardian or other adult person having the legal care, custody or control of such person or spouse of such person over twenty-one years of age, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Ord. No. 167 N.S., 6/54)
SEC. 12.3 SAME-LIABILITY OF PARENT OR GUARDIAN Every parent, guardian or other person having the legal care, custody or control of any person under the age of eighteen years who permits such person to violate any provision of the preceding section is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Ord. No. 167 N.S., 6/54) 12.3.1 Disorderly Assemblies or Congregations. It shall be unlawful for two or more persons to congregate or assemble for the purpose of engaging in any type of activity or disturbance that may result in harm to persons or property to make or endeavor or make any disturbance on any public street or other public property. (Ord. No. 237 N.S., 4/63)
A City of Rules—and Residents Who Challenged Them
Piedmont's history contains no shortage of colorful animal stories.
There was Jerry, the runaway monkey who led police on a chase before being captured in the 1920s.
There was Pete, a donkey who wandered through Piedmont in 1933, eating flowers and damaging lawns.
There were complaints about stray dogs, a deer named Trinity that became a local favorite, and numerous other encounters between animals and residents.
These stories were not necessarily the subjects of enacted ordinances. However, they help explain the world in which Piedmont's lawmakers operated. In a small residential community, a seemingly minor disagreement could quickly become a matter for the City Council.
Chickens were noisy. Bees bothered neighbors. Parked cars blocked streets. Building setbacks affected property owners. Trees obscured views. Young people held loud parties. And one household kept a lion.
Nearly fifty years later, Chapter 24 remains a distinct part of the published Piedmont City Code. But the larger story is not simply that Piedmont passed unusual laws.
It is that the ordinances preserve evidence of the city's evolving character: its desire to remain residential, its efforts to control nuisances, its concerns about public safety, and the recurring disagreements between individual rights and municipal authority.
From the chicken disputes of the early 1900s to Corpus Christi's bingo request in 1977, these records remind us that even the smallest local laws can reveal larger stories about the communities that created them.
Historical Sources and Further Reading
Piedmont municipal ordinances: City of Piedmont Charter and City Code, including Chapter 24 (Bingo), Chapter 4A (Bicycles), Chapter 3 (Parks and viewshed regulations), and Chapter 12 (Miscellaneous Offenses). See also the City Clerk's ordinance records.
California bingo history: 1976 Proposition 9 ballot archive, California Gambling Control Commission's bingo information, and California Penal Code Section 326.5.
Historical newspapers: Oakland Tribune, Oakland Enquirer, Oakland Post-Enquirer, San Francisco Examiner, San Francisco Chronicle, Berkeley Gazette, East Bay Labor Journal, and other newspapers, 1911–2014. Particular emphasis has been placed on reporting from July 6, 1977, concerning Corpus Christi School and bingo; the 1976–1986 bingo coverage; the 1911–1921 chicken disputes; and the April–July 1966 Simba controversy.
Historical note: Newspaper reports reflect the circumstances and claims recorded at the time. Proposed ordinances, enacted laws, court decisions, and provisions remaining in today's published municipal code are not necessarily equivalent. Some historical enforcement outcomes and original adoption dates remain to be verified against City Council minutes and ordinance records.
Comments