20
Jul
2004
Every year, weather permitting, the Mississippi Valley Blues Festival is held in downtown Davenport's LeClaire Park. The setting is one-of-a-kind, a picturesque complement to our notable location - the only place where the Mississippi River runs east and west. The only drawbacks are the park's small size and the obnoxious amount of concrete surrounding it for parking to accommodate its garish neighbor, the Rhythm City Casino. It's almost a physical shock to be immersed in the cadence of the blues, made more emphatic by the peaceful greenspace that frames the picturesque Mississippi River, Lock & Dam 15, and downtown Rock Island's glimmering skyline, in one direction, then assaulted with the harshness of glaring neon razzle-dazzle enveloped by cars crammed together in endless parking lots in the opposite direction.
But residents tolerate it to the degree that it contributes financially to the community's not-for-profits via a 4-percent set-aside from its revenues required by law as part of its gaming permit.
Now the casino is planning to move a matter of yards east to consolidate its operation with a brand new hotel facility, complete with parking ramps and convention center, squarely in the heart of downtown Davenport's limited riverfront.
It is an unreasonable request to begin with, and should be met with no less than outrage by our city leaders. The extremely limited amount of actual landmass between the Centennial Bridge and the Lock & Dam/Arsenal Bridge makes any riverfront development absurd. No amount of design or architecture can replace access and enjoyment of our wonderfully unique and precious riverfront.
The public has consistently supported no floodwall at this specific location precisely because of the view and the amenities that surround it. If city leaders and Davenport's city council allow a hotel facility, or any commercial development for that matter, to proceed on our downtown riverfront, it would be a betrayal of the public trust of the worst kind. Such a decision would deprive generations of the privilege of enjoying our special environment.
The casino should consider moving west of John O'Donnell for a plethora of reasons. Why this location is not being considered, especially when it has been offered, is a mystery, and unacceptable. The hotel facility would cause the casino to become essentially exclusive, giving its guests no reason to leave its property for services. Its proximity to other amenities is of little consequence. But even if it were, the move to nearby Centennial Park is hardly away from the fray.
On the other hand, should city leaders permit the construction of a casino hotel facility between Brady and Perry streets, which is clearly the heart of downtown Davenport regardless of the Quad-City Times characterization that it is not, the casino would trump the new Figge Art Museum, the River Music Experience, and all other revitalization efforts as the primary focus of not only our downtown, but of our entire riverfront. It is an insult to even consider such a plan.
As folks walk along the river from John O'Donnell to LeClaire Park, much of the fantastic view of the historical Arsenal Bridge and Lock & Dam 15 is already completely blocked by the casino's cumbersome porte cochere. It is annoying at best, shameful at worst. We should celebrate this environmental asset, but at a minimum we should preserve it for public access and enjoyment.
City leaders are reviewing the final draft of the "RiverVision Final Report 2004," submitted by Hargreaves Associates last Friday. The hotel component is featured prominently in the plan, but lightly disclaimed as a "potential hotel." The city council will likely begin its consideration of the plan next cycle, the week of August 2. It is critical for the public to weigh in about this component before the council votes, and before it is included in Davenport's Vision Iowa application.
In the RiverVision final plan, the discussion regarding a casino hotel is benign, meaning the evaluation is cursory, neither advocating nor objecting to the concept. It does acknowledge the public's general disapproval of a hotel on our riverfront, but still gives a broad nod if certain stipulations were to accompany the development, such as restrictions on city financing, design, etc.
As a taxpayer, no amount of city financing is appropriate, and no architectural design could possibly replace the riverfront's own appeal. The Lock & Dam in and of itself is of great interest, especially as it relates to the historically significant Arsenal Bridge, river commerce and traffic, etc. It has been reported that the site where Judy's Antiques building used to be also happens to be the geographical intersection for the Great American Bike and Northern American Bike trails once they are completed. This is potentially a tremendous opportunity for attracting more tourism. But not if the view is encumbered by a commercial development, including but not limited to a casino hotel facility.
Time is running out. If the hotel is included as a component of Davenport's Vision Iowa application, it serves to endorse the casino's plan and obligate the city. Also, by including the hotel concept in the various plans and studies relative to our riverfront, it lends legitimacy to the development and further entrenches us. It is time for residents to get involved by sending a clear message to casino stockholders and city leaders that the location currently being cited is unacceptable and jeopardizes the good will of the community toward the casino venture, which in turn puts at risk the entire gaming operation when it comes back for a vote in the not-so-distant future.
But residents tolerate it to the degree that it contributes financially to the community's not-for-profits via a 4-percent set-aside from its revenues required by law as part of its gaming permit.
Now the casino is planning to move a matter of yards east to consolidate its operation with a brand new hotel facility, complete with parking ramps and convention center, squarely in the heart of downtown Davenport's limited riverfront.
It is an unreasonable request to begin with, and should be met with no less than outrage by our city leaders. The extremely limited amount of actual landmass between the Centennial Bridge and the Lock & Dam/Arsenal Bridge makes any riverfront development absurd. No amount of design or architecture can replace access and enjoyment of our wonderfully unique and precious riverfront.
The public has consistently supported no floodwall at this specific location precisely because of the view and the amenities that surround it. If city leaders and Davenport's city council allow a hotel facility, or any commercial development for that matter, to proceed on our downtown riverfront, it would be a betrayal of the public trust of the worst kind. Such a decision would deprive generations of the privilege of enjoying our special environment.
The casino should consider moving west of John O'Donnell for a plethora of reasons. Why this location is not being considered, especially when it has been offered, is a mystery, and unacceptable. The hotel facility would cause the casino to become essentially exclusive, giving its guests no reason to leave its property for services. Its proximity to other amenities is of little consequence. But even if it were, the move to nearby Centennial Park is hardly away from the fray.
On the other hand, should city leaders permit the construction of a casino hotel facility between Brady and Perry streets, which is clearly the heart of downtown Davenport regardless of the Quad-City Times characterization that it is not, the casino would trump the new Figge Art Museum, the River Music Experience, and all other revitalization efforts as the primary focus of not only our downtown, but of our entire riverfront. It is an insult to even consider such a plan.
As folks walk along the river from John O'Donnell to LeClaire Park, much of the fantastic view of the historical Arsenal Bridge and Lock & Dam 15 is already completely blocked by the casino's cumbersome porte cochere. It is annoying at best, shameful at worst. We should celebrate this environmental asset, but at a minimum we should preserve it for public access and enjoyment.
City leaders are reviewing the final draft of the "RiverVision Final Report 2004," submitted by Hargreaves Associates last Friday. The hotel component is featured prominently in the plan, but lightly disclaimed as a "potential hotel." The city council will likely begin its consideration of the plan next cycle, the week of August 2. It is critical for the public to weigh in about this component before the council votes, and before it is included in Davenport's Vision Iowa application.
In the RiverVision final plan, the discussion regarding a casino hotel is benign, meaning the evaluation is cursory, neither advocating nor objecting to the concept. It does acknowledge the public's general disapproval of a hotel on our riverfront, but still gives a broad nod if certain stipulations were to accompany the development, such as restrictions on city financing, design, etc.
As a taxpayer, no amount of city financing is appropriate, and no architectural design could possibly replace the riverfront's own appeal. The Lock & Dam in and of itself is of great interest, especially as it relates to the historically significant Arsenal Bridge, river commerce and traffic, etc. It has been reported that the site where Judy's Antiques building used to be also happens to be the geographical intersection for the Great American Bike and Northern American Bike trails once they are completed. This is potentially a tremendous opportunity for attracting more tourism. But not if the view is encumbered by a commercial development, including but not limited to a casino hotel facility.
Time is running out. If the hotel is included as a component of Davenport's Vision Iowa application, it serves to endorse the casino's plan and obligate the city. Also, by including the hotel concept in the various plans and studies relative to our riverfront, it lends legitimacy to the development and further entrenches us. It is time for residents to get involved by sending a clear message to casino stockholders and city leaders that the location currently being cited is unacceptable and jeopardizes the good will of the community toward the casino venture, which in turn puts at risk the entire gaming operation when it comes back for a vote in the not-so-distant future.
