18
Jan
2005
It needs to be stated upfront: The Isle of Capri's (IOC) proposed casino hotel on downtown Davenport's riverfront is not a done deal. Regardless of IOC's ambitious presentation at two public meetings last month now being shown on the city's cable channel, or the splashy direct mailer households received in recent weeks, this casino hotel has not been decided by any stretch. But now is the time for the public to weigh in with its support or opposition. Specifically, Davenport's 10 aldermen need to know where the community stands on this, and they need be told sooner rather than later.
Less than a month ago, the IOC submitted a draft development agreement for the city to consider, building a casino hotel between Brady and Perry streets along the riverfront. The draft was so woefully inadequate that it was rejected in whole by city staff. But rather than insist that IOC do better, the city administration took it upon itself to re-author an agreement on IOC's behalf, claiming it would reflect a much better deal for the city.
This is the kind of backward thinking that plagues Davenport's leadership. Creating its own version of a development agreement is not only reactionary and fear-based, but by its very nature it erases any leverage out of the gate. And the only things it truly reflects are special interests.
If you are a Davenport resident and/or pay taxes in Davenport, ask yourself this question: When did your elected alderman authorize the City of Davenport to hire and pay the former chair of the Iowa Racing & Gaming Commission to negotiate a riverfront development agreement financing 30 percent or more of an Isle of Capri $43-million, 10-story riverfront hotel and five-story parking garage that would totally dominate our waterfront?
The answer is: Never.
The proverbial cart is clearly before the horse as city leaders and special interests work diligently behind the scenes with Isle of Capri officials to revise a preposterous and incomplete first-draft development proposal. No public action, no official vote of any sanctioned body or committee has been made to authorize said negotiations on behalf of the city.
What have our city staff and elected officials done with the audacious IOC proposal?
They have not solicited additional input from their constituencies or taxpayers.
They have not heeded the advice of a seven-month-long bi-state River Vision public process, with a final report that said, "Engaging the public to illuminate and clearly articulate the many positives and numerous negatives of a riverfront hotel is critical to the process of determining whether to move forward with the concept."
They have not sought out alternative proposals from other potential business enterprises throughout the country or world.
And the city and IOC have not sufficiently examined alternative sites for an expansion of IOC's gaming operation, such as the Blackhawk Hotel, west of Centennial Bridge, or east of the Arsenal Bridge. While the casino and the mayor have stated those sites are unsatisfactory, no evidence supporting why they are unsatisfactory has been forthcoming.
No, none of these prudent measures was considered or pursued. Rather, the future of the Davenport's riverfront is being hijacked by an impatient city administration and mayor buoyed by special interests who cry, "Nobody else has a vision for what to do with our number-one waterfront asset." Simultaneously, the Davenport City Council is being lined up like targets at a carnival game for the well-financed IOC to lobby using fuzzy math and bold but unrealistic watercolor renderings.
In the coming weeks a revised version of the IOC's proposal, paid for by Davenport taxpayers, will be submitted to city staff and council members behind closed doors that could well encumber taxpayers for generations to come and deprive the public its access to the waterfront. Comically, proponents are quick to point out that the IOC has agreed to reimburse the city for expenses incurred for the consultative services of Lorraine May, author of such a proposal. So we can be assured that Mr. May has the best interest of Davenport taxpayers at heart.
Predictably, the fear card is beginning to be played by Mayor Charlie Brooke. In a memo to city-council members responding to the points made in the Reader cover story of December 29, 2004, Brooke posits that with the enhancement of Casino Rock Island on I-280 and the Isle of Capri casino in Bettendorf, Davenport faces the unseemly future of declining revenues from Rhythm City Casino unless it too raises the bar with an adjacent hotel facility.
Well, as always, the "devil is in the details."
Consider that Rhythm City Casino has a "floor" - or minimum commitment - to the City of Davenport and the Riverboat Development Authority with regards to taxes, rent, and a percentage of revenues for the right to operate its casino business. It's the law.
If we are to believe Brooke's hype, how much do Davenport and all the not-for-profits stand to lose if the Casino Rock Island does indeed climb above its current 20-percent market share of gaming revenues in the QC community? If the city is willing to use taxpayer funding and public-trust waterfronts to buffer market forces for the IOC, shouldn't other business enterprises enjoy such assistance as well? If your business stands to lose market share, wouldn't you like a city-financed expansion loan to compete as well?
Granted, the city has come to enjoy increased revenues beyond the agreed-upon minimum payouts. But what is the opportunity cost - lost riverfront viewsheds and industry risks - associated with shoring up the IOC's business plan? The public at large deserves to know these key statistics, especially prior to any good-faith proposals on the city's behalf are presented to the IOC.
But that would mean including the public in the discussion. What does the community at large have to say about all of this? It's tough to say, since the City of Davenport is not obligated to conduct a referendum on any bonding due to its charter-city status. And there's a virtual gag order on many high profile community leaders, especially not-for-profits, who might voice their opposition but can't because of the vast influence of the Rhythm City Casino's license holder, the Riverboat Development Authority (RDA). The RDA grants millions of dollars each year to our local schools, not-for-profits, and the City of Davenport. Without the RDA, many high-profile projects - such as the Figge Art Museum, the YMCA, River Vision, and IMAX - potentially could have failed by having to rely strictly on largesse from the community.
The mere fact that this chilling effect exists does not reflect well on the RDA, or its longtime president, Mary Ellen Chamberlin, who actively supports and lobbies on IOC's behalf to see this project through. What the RDA and IOC continue to miss is the resentment and ill will that this project will generate if by some horror it actually comes to pass as currently proposed. At the very least, the next referendum to vote on gambling here will likely see the end of it as the result of IOC's and the RDA's dismissal of the community's input and ideas.
The arrogance that defines IOC's approach to this project and the silent hammer of lost future RDA grants that looms large over those who oppose the IOC's wishes - or merely wish a broader discussion of additional alternatives - is creating resentment and despair among the community where public pride and excitement should exist about our city's fabulous waterfront.
Less than a month ago, the IOC submitted a draft development agreement for the city to consider, building a casino hotel between Brady and Perry streets along the riverfront. The draft was so woefully inadequate that it was rejected in whole by city staff. But rather than insist that IOC do better, the city administration took it upon itself to re-author an agreement on IOC's behalf, claiming it would reflect a much better deal for the city.
This is the kind of backward thinking that plagues Davenport's leadership. Creating its own version of a development agreement is not only reactionary and fear-based, but by its very nature it erases any leverage out of the gate. And the only things it truly reflects are special interests.
If you are a Davenport resident and/or pay taxes in Davenport, ask yourself this question: When did your elected alderman authorize the City of Davenport to hire and pay the former chair of the Iowa Racing & Gaming Commission to negotiate a riverfront development agreement financing 30 percent or more of an Isle of Capri $43-million, 10-story riverfront hotel and five-story parking garage that would totally dominate our waterfront?
The answer is: Never.
The proverbial cart is clearly before the horse as city leaders and special interests work diligently behind the scenes with Isle of Capri officials to revise a preposterous and incomplete first-draft development proposal. No public action, no official vote of any sanctioned body or committee has been made to authorize said negotiations on behalf of the city.
What have our city staff and elected officials done with the audacious IOC proposal?
They have not solicited additional input from their constituencies or taxpayers.
They have not heeded the advice of a seven-month-long bi-state River Vision public process, with a final report that said, "Engaging the public to illuminate and clearly articulate the many positives and numerous negatives of a riverfront hotel is critical to the process of determining whether to move forward with the concept."
They have not sought out alternative proposals from other potential business enterprises throughout the country or world.
And the city and IOC have not sufficiently examined alternative sites for an expansion of IOC's gaming operation, such as the Blackhawk Hotel, west of Centennial Bridge, or east of the Arsenal Bridge. While the casino and the mayor have stated those sites are unsatisfactory, no evidence supporting why they are unsatisfactory has been forthcoming.
No, none of these prudent measures was considered or pursued. Rather, the future of the Davenport's riverfront is being hijacked by an impatient city administration and mayor buoyed by special interests who cry, "Nobody else has a vision for what to do with our number-one waterfront asset." Simultaneously, the Davenport City Council is being lined up like targets at a carnival game for the well-financed IOC to lobby using fuzzy math and bold but unrealistic watercolor renderings.
In the coming weeks a revised version of the IOC's proposal, paid for by Davenport taxpayers, will be submitted to city staff and council members behind closed doors that could well encumber taxpayers for generations to come and deprive the public its access to the waterfront. Comically, proponents are quick to point out that the IOC has agreed to reimburse the city for expenses incurred for the consultative services of Lorraine May, author of such a proposal. So we can be assured that Mr. May has the best interest of Davenport taxpayers at heart.
Predictably, the fear card is beginning to be played by Mayor Charlie Brooke. In a memo to city-council members responding to the points made in the Reader cover story of December 29, 2004, Brooke posits that with the enhancement of Casino Rock Island on I-280 and the Isle of Capri casino in Bettendorf, Davenport faces the unseemly future of declining revenues from Rhythm City Casino unless it too raises the bar with an adjacent hotel facility.
Well, as always, the "devil is in the details."
Consider that Rhythm City Casino has a "floor" - or minimum commitment - to the City of Davenport and the Riverboat Development Authority with regards to taxes, rent, and a percentage of revenues for the right to operate its casino business. It's the law.
If we are to believe Brooke's hype, how much do Davenport and all the not-for-profits stand to lose if the Casino Rock Island does indeed climb above its current 20-percent market share of gaming revenues in the QC community? If the city is willing to use taxpayer funding and public-trust waterfronts to buffer market forces for the IOC, shouldn't other business enterprises enjoy such assistance as well? If your business stands to lose market share, wouldn't you like a city-financed expansion loan to compete as well?
Granted, the city has come to enjoy increased revenues beyond the agreed-upon minimum payouts. But what is the opportunity cost - lost riverfront viewsheds and industry risks - associated with shoring up the IOC's business plan? The public at large deserves to know these key statistics, especially prior to any good-faith proposals on the city's behalf are presented to the IOC.
But that would mean including the public in the discussion. What does the community at large have to say about all of this? It's tough to say, since the City of Davenport is not obligated to conduct a referendum on any bonding due to its charter-city status. And there's a virtual gag order on many high profile community leaders, especially not-for-profits, who might voice their opposition but can't because of the vast influence of the Rhythm City Casino's license holder, the Riverboat Development Authority (RDA). The RDA grants millions of dollars each year to our local schools, not-for-profits, and the City of Davenport. Without the RDA, many high-profile projects - such as the Figge Art Museum, the YMCA, River Vision, and IMAX - potentially could have failed by having to rely strictly on largesse from the community.
The mere fact that this chilling effect exists does not reflect well on the RDA, or its longtime president, Mary Ellen Chamberlin, who actively supports and lobbies on IOC's behalf to see this project through. What the RDA and IOC continue to miss is the resentment and ill will that this project will generate if by some horror it actually comes to pass as currently proposed. At the very least, the next referendum to vote on gambling here will likely see the end of it as the result of IOC's and the RDA's dismissal of the community's input and ideas.
The arrogance that defines IOC's approach to this project and the silent hammer of lost future RDA grants that looms large over those who oppose the IOC's wishes - or merely wish a broader discussion of additional alternatives - is creating resentment and despair among the community where public pride and excitement should exist about our city's fabulous waterfront.
