Sunday, November 26, 2006

My thoughts on the possible casino move

Ok, here's the QCTimes article with the background information for anyone that hasn't read it. Its also been discussed on some of the local blogs, including relative newcomer Davenport Snarkiness, which I have added to the link bar upon commenter request.

Here's another thing that's important to this discussion. Its from the website of the Riverboat Development Authority.
The Riverboat Development Authority (RDA) was founded in 1989 for the purpose of becoming the qualified sponsoring organization for a riverboat casino in Davenport, Iowa. Iowa law requires that the gambling license be held by a non-profit organization.

In 1991 RDA received a gambling license in partnership with the President Riverboat Casino, which operated in Davenport until October of 2000. At that time, the casino was sold and is currently operating as the Rhythm City Casino. RDA approved the use of their license and the Rhythm City and RDA received a license from the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission at that time.

The way that reads to me, the RDA's purpose is to control the gambling license for a Davenport-based casino. That said, all the comments about the casino "leaving Davenport" appear to be baseless. If IOC decides that Davenport's casino isn't profitable enough for them, RDA could just find another casino company to operate their license.

As veteran blog-readers know, I supported the current casino hotel plan. I feel its a better solution than the current situation, which Isle of Capri could legally continue for many years. I also believe that there is some benefit to downtown to have this attraction, despite the fact that many people go directly to the casino, gamble, and leave. Basically, the visitors probably have a better chance of visiting downtown if they're already down there than they do out by I-280 or something.

So my feelings about any change of plans boil down to this:
Move it off the riverfront if you want, but it has to stay downtown.
If they insist on leaving the downtown area, they shouldn't receive a single penny in city assistance or tax breaks.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

The use of the riverboats and that theme are outdated. Vegas-style operations are what everyone wants now. Are you actually saying that the life and success of the downtown depends on gambling? What happened to offering multi-cultural venues and tastes? You like your little junkets to explore what other cities are doing ... so go explore and investigate how this is working elsewhere before you at the very beginning say that it "has to remain downtown".

Unknown said...

I don't think the casino should receive any help if they scuttle the old agreement. It's their own fault that they got blind-sided by the Riverside operation. Too bad IOC didn't have better foresight. Not only should they have looked at other sites because people wanted them to, but it also might make more business sense. I don't have much confidence that the IOC knows what they are doing at this point.

cruiser said...

If you read the City Council update it sounds like the city is ready to do whatever it takes to keep the boat here. I think that includes an interstate site, and a lot of monies.

Anonymous said...

Conservative Demo here:

Adding on to Cruiser's comment ; how the heck did we-the-people (as a society, not only just Davenport) get into the pattern of being forced to kiss the anus of Business?

Anonymous said...

Hello ...... what's good for business is ultimately good for the city!

QuadCityImages said...

I don't see why we would need to give them anything to move out to the interstate. Like I said, its not like they're going to leave the city. I would think the city has some serious leverage based on their already-signed agreement with the casino, so hopefully we can negotiate from a position of power.

And 6:56, I'm certainly not suggesting that the downtown's success depends on the casino. I just believe that it provides an increase in activity and the feel that things are happening down there. In downtown Louisville there was nothing happening after midnight on a Sunday, whereas here at least the casino, its bar, and its diner would have been open.

I meant to include this in the actual post, but I also think that all this worry about Riverside is premature. Sure they may pull away some of the Iowa City/Cedar Rapids crowd, but I thought the bread and butter of our gambling operations is Chicago visitors? Also I think a lot of people are just seeing what the Riverside casino is like during its first 2 months, and may not drive over there for their "every day gambling needs." It seems crazy to make big changes based on 2 months of data.

Also, I'm still fine with them continuing with the existing riverfront hotel plan.

Unknown said...

If this small sample of Riverside data makes them flinch, then like I said, I'm concerned they didn't really know what they were doing with the hotel project. The critics that said they didn't have any data to support the decision to build on that location may have been right. I want to see them succeed and stay downtown, too. I just hope the city uses their new leverage to get the best deal possible.

Anonymous said...

"I just hope the city uses their new leverage to get the best deal possible."

Ha! The city has such a great track record on this score....

Anonymous said...

How are the two main parties going to work together on this issue is the main question isn't it? What does RDA want? What does Mary Ellen want?

Anonymous said...

The negoiators for the Riverboat now know exactly how the city will rip up the old contract, and give them a much better deal. All they have to do is ask. They just had to watch how the Swing Deal went down, and now it's the IOC's turn up to the plate.

Unknown said...

To 1:05: That's why I said it was a "hope".

Anonymous said...

"despite the fact that many people go directly to the casino, gamble, and leave."

By "many," you surely mean "almost every single gambler."

The casino trains its employees to think of restaurants, museums, theaters, shops as competition for the gambler's money.

""I just hope the city uses their new leverage to get the best deal possible."

Ha! The city has such a great track record on this score...."

Ha! Ditto.

QuadCityImages said...

Don't you agree that there's a better chance of gamblers visiting the downtown if its within sight, rather than out at some interchange?

It might not be a high percentage, but I think it would be more if its downtown.

Anonymous said...

If the IOC landbases at Wacky Waters, then the gamblers will use our new downtown - at 53rd and Elmore.

Anonymous said...

Let's ask Tony LaHood what he thinks, since he seems to have an interest in downtown Davenport. Or was he just playing companion to Howard again, like he did in Des Moines when she belittled our men in blue?

Anonymous said...

Maryellen Chamberlin is a problem.

Anonymous said...

She needs to go and so do here large awards to her friend Kate Ridge of JLCS fame.

Anonymous said...

The downtowns without gambling will be better places to consider living. Late night activity will be better kept in check by police without the casino traffic. If the boat was any kind of stimulus for other business, why can't you at least find a decent convienience store downtown.

Summer activity on the riverfront will be much more pleasing without the boat in the way.

QCI , I did not see any boats in Louisville!

QuadCityImages said...

You're correct, I didn't see a casino in Louisville, and there was nobody on the streets.

More people downtown equals a safer downtown.

Anonymous said...

we sold our riverfront to a riverboat and a parking garage. how dumb are we again?

QuadCityImages said...

Just look at it now...