07
Sep
2004
It confounds me that many city leaders are framing the issue of a new casino hotel on Davenport's downtown riverfront as a remedy for the current riverboat casino facility, specifically the porte cochere that connects to the boat. An 11-story building that would consume an entire block and then some is somehow supposed to improve upon what is now being billed as the "status quo." The status quo seemed acceptable during the $113-million River Renaissance planning. Why is it an issue now?
This week's cover demonstrates the potential increased intrusiveness of gaming on our riverfront as it is currently sited. I am at a loss as to how replacing a two-story, small-restaurant-size add-on with an 11-story building that includes not one but two attached parking ramps can be construed as an improvement to the riverfront when all that is objectionable about the present facility would simply be magnified exponentially.
(As a sidebar, in lieu of serious problems with the sewer main in this part of downtown Davenport, explain to the public how, if eight condos were unsuitable for development on the now-razed Judy's Antiques site, which is higher in the floodplain, because of the possibility of sanitary-sewer backups during a flood, the same sewer system can handle more than 180 toilets being flushed in a location that is even deeper in the floodplain. Davenport Public Works Director Dee Bruemmer said that because the possibility of a hotel is preliminary, engineering issues such as flood-proofing and the sewer system haven't been discussed yet.)
Neither the McGladrey or the HVS financial-impact study for a new hotel adjacent to the casino is site-specific. Thus far, no data or information has been proffered that rules out entertaining additional locations such as west of the Centennial Bridge or the levee area north of the lock and dam, which is to be vacated in the next three years by our local cement companies. The claim that the soil west of the Centennial is unsuitable for the hotel project is new, albeit unsubstantiated, information that should be shared with the public for our scrutiny.
This is a complex issue and thankfully the tail wagging the dog seems to have slowed down a bit - city officials have stated that without a formal proposal from Isle of Capri, a yet-to-be-formally-proposed riverfront hotel may very well not be included in a forthcoming Vision Iowa grant application.
What is the impetus for this expansion to begin with? The current Rhythm City operation is one of the more profitable casinos going for IOC. We're not against free-enterprise expansion, by any means. But are the subsidies/incentives/financing mechanisms (pick your favorite term) being sought by IOC from Davenport taxpayers warranted? What is the city's incentive to assist with up to 50 percent of the costs of the project? Additional jobs, additional tax revenues? Keep in mind that according to the McGladery study, the city may recoup its investment in this project within 10 years, while the IOC is forecasted to have a return on its investment within two years. Why is this acceptable?
Unfortunately, civic leaders in Davenport have proven they are willing to jump when asked by local profitable companies who intimate they might move elsewhere if they do not get a financial boost. This potential argument holds no water in the marketplace for such a profitable casino.
Proponents of the hotel "concept" have claimed that part of the net gain is moving the parking sprawl off the waterfront, increasing Davenport's green space and visibility. This includes a city-financed parking structure adjacent to the hotel, where all of the casino's current cars will then pay to park. A net gain of green space is a good thing for Davenport. So how about a substantial net gain of green space? Move the current casino parking into the Brady Street parking ramp - a ramp that is already financed by the citizens of Davenport, and not currently being used at a level to pay for itself. If the answer is "no" due to having to cross River Drive, then what is the sky bridge that deposits folks at the entrance of the casino meant to do? At a minimum, the hundreds of thousands of casino patrons would be afforded the opportunity to view the results of Davenport's $113-million River Renaissance, such as the Redstone and Figge.
Unfortunately, like most of the project's components so far, no data is forthcoming for public review. The Isle of Capri has had private meetings with our city aldermen and DavenportOne officials, where some of this missing data may or may not have been discussed. However, the casino's continued silence to the public in this crucial matter only further undermines its credibility as corporate stewards of our community.
This week's cover demonstrates the potential increased intrusiveness of gaming on our riverfront as it is currently sited. I am at a loss as to how replacing a two-story, small-restaurant-size add-on with an 11-story building that includes not one but two attached parking ramps can be construed as an improvement to the riverfront when all that is objectionable about the present facility would simply be magnified exponentially.
(As a sidebar, in lieu of serious problems with the sewer main in this part of downtown Davenport, explain to the public how, if eight condos were unsuitable for development on the now-razed Judy's Antiques site, which is higher in the floodplain, because of the possibility of sanitary-sewer backups during a flood, the same sewer system can handle more than 180 toilets being flushed in a location that is even deeper in the floodplain. Davenport Public Works Director Dee Bruemmer said that because the possibility of a hotel is preliminary, engineering issues such as flood-proofing and the sewer system haven't been discussed yet.)
Neither the McGladrey or the HVS financial-impact study for a new hotel adjacent to the casino is site-specific. Thus far, no data or information has been proffered that rules out entertaining additional locations such as west of the Centennial Bridge or the levee area north of the lock and dam, which is to be vacated in the next three years by our local cement companies. The claim that the soil west of the Centennial is unsuitable for the hotel project is new, albeit unsubstantiated, information that should be shared with the public for our scrutiny.
This is a complex issue and thankfully the tail wagging the dog seems to have slowed down a bit - city officials have stated that without a formal proposal from Isle of Capri, a yet-to-be-formally-proposed riverfront hotel may very well not be included in a forthcoming Vision Iowa grant application.
What is the impetus for this expansion to begin with? The current Rhythm City operation is one of the more profitable casinos going for IOC. We're not against free-enterprise expansion, by any means. But are the subsidies/incentives/financing mechanisms (pick your favorite term) being sought by IOC from Davenport taxpayers warranted? What is the city's incentive to assist with up to 50 percent of the costs of the project? Additional jobs, additional tax revenues? Keep in mind that according to the McGladery study, the city may recoup its investment in this project within 10 years, while the IOC is forecasted to have a return on its investment within two years. Why is this acceptable?
Unfortunately, civic leaders in Davenport have proven they are willing to jump when asked by local profitable companies who intimate they might move elsewhere if they do not get a financial boost. This potential argument holds no water in the marketplace for such a profitable casino.
Proponents of the hotel "concept" have claimed that part of the net gain is moving the parking sprawl off the waterfront, increasing Davenport's green space and visibility. This includes a city-financed parking structure adjacent to the hotel, where all of the casino's current cars will then pay to park. A net gain of green space is a good thing for Davenport. So how about a substantial net gain of green space? Move the current casino parking into the Brady Street parking ramp - a ramp that is already financed by the citizens of Davenport, and not currently being used at a level to pay for itself. If the answer is "no" due to having to cross River Drive, then what is the sky bridge that deposits folks at the entrance of the casino meant to do? At a minimum, the hundreds of thousands of casino patrons would be afforded the opportunity to view the results of Davenport's $113-million River Renaissance, such as the Redstone and Figge.
Unfortunately, like most of the project's components so far, no data is forthcoming for public review. The Isle of Capri has had private meetings with our city aldermen and DavenportOne officials, where some of this missing data may or may not have been discussed. However, the casino's continued silence to the public in this crucial matter only further undermines its credibility as corporate stewards of our community.
