10
May
2005
Last week's Waterfront Workshop saw close to 600 attendees at three meetings over two days. Ostensibly the goal of these meetings, hosted by the City of Davenport and facilitated by consultants Hargreaves & Associates and Chan Krieger & Associates, was to gain public input for design and usage alternatives for Davenport's 15 acres of waterfront property from the Lock & Dam 15 west to Harrison Street, south of River Drive.
But last week's meetings turned out to be an attempted coup of the public planning process, from hijacking the break-out sessions with facilitators planted by DavenportOne (D1) and Isle of Capri (IOC), to allowing the president of the Iowa Gaming Association to make opening remarks alongside the city officials and consultants. Those officials and consultants in the final presentation failed to include a single site plan or concept drawing that reflected a use of the waterfront other than the casino/hotel, and repeatedly stated falsified and vague information with no empirical evidence.
The good news it that is was a failed attempt. Despite complicity by City Administrator Craig Malin, the "in the bag" consultants (whose unprofessionalism was underscored by their unpreparedness and unresponsiveness to the public), and the extreme pressures by D1 operatives and IOC employees to manipulate the proceedings in favor of the proposed hotel, the most support IOC could gather for its singular monolithic vision was about 50 percent of those in attendance.
The other 50 percent in attendance favored alternative uses for the riverfront that excluded the 11-story hotel and parking ramp and provided in great detail throughout the sessions rich ideas, such as open park space, amphitheatres, biking/blading rentals, fishing piers, restaurants, and sculpture gardens. Facilitators documented in writing and voiced these ideas loud and clear, but in the end were summarily ignored by the paid consultants. This was glaringly apparent when, at the Tuesday wrap-up meeting, the slide show focused almost entirely on three different configurations of the hotel at the proposed location, making no effort to envision or document for consideration the dozens of alternative usages hundreds of citizens had shared the previous day.
This $30,000, seven-hour planning process over two days became one giant insult to those of us who fought so hard for genuine public engagement relative to this issue. Perhaps we should have known better. The primary stakeholders who support the hotel on the riverfront have been disingenuous from the beginning. Take DavenportOne, which held no fewer than four preparatory meetings the week prior yet claims to have not taken a position on the hotel proposal. Then there's Hargreaves & Associates, itself partly responsible for the division of this community. This firm was at the helm of the nine-month-long RiverVision study and, despite equally vociferous public input last December to move the casino off the waterfront, was complicit in last-minute manipulation of the final "Consensus Concept" to include a hotel site for the casino, when no such consensus existed. And of course there's Mary Ellen Chamberlin, president of the Riverboat Development Authority, who is claiming that there have been no less than five studies conducted by the IOC showing other locations to be too costly for a hotel expansion. Yet no response is forthcoming when asked why the public and city council aren't privy to these studies.
Examples of falsified and vague information presented by the consultants included a statement by the consultant's economist claiming that, with a hotel adjacent to the casino, the city would realize a $3-million gain. He failed, however, to disclose that at least two-thirds of this amount reflected current revenues that the city would continue to enjoy without the hotel expansion. This same economist also claimed that buying out the casino's existing lease could cost tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars, yet could cite no evidence to support such a statement.
Consultant Alan Mountjoy stated that because of the flooding, "We cannot make a strong recommendation for any investment in this 15 acres for residential or office structures." It begs the question: If such structures shouldn't be built in this floodplain, why would an 11-story hotel structure suddenly merit said investment?
But the most misleading claim of all, which was repeated many times during the sessions, was that the hotel needed to be on this particular waterfront because "its guests will visit the cultural venues in our downtown." There is no evidence whatsoever to support this claim. In fact, there is more evidence to refute it, including the lack of development surrounding IOC's Bettendorf location, and the marginal economic impact relative to downtown Davenport's restaurants, convention center, theatre, and retail operations.
Interestingly, when a citizen asked an IOC manager why a parking ramp was necessary as part of its expansion when Davenport already has two new, under-used ramps directly across the street, the manager explained that "our guests do not like to walk." The citizen pointed out that the newly erected sky bridge would drop casino customers at the front door, and the manager repeated, "Yes, but they don't want to walk." Perhaps Mountjoy was not clued in to this factor about the casino's clients when he cavalierly stated they would be frequenting the Figge and the RME.
The cold, hard truth of the matter is that the parking ramp, hotel, and restaurant are specifically designed to keep casino guests on the property, and away from surrounding attractions. Any claim otherwise is a public-relations gimmick. The old adage "Watch what is done, not what is said" is good advice with regard to IOC's numerous claims.
Additional claims of more green space for the public (five acres is minuscule compared to the 10 we are sacrificing), greater access to the waterfront (a 50-foot setback a block long with an eight-foot berm beneath an 11-story edifice behind defies access), and inflated benefits in the form of revenues for the city and not-for-profits projected at $207 million ($143 million is complete blue sky and not attributable to direct financial benefits) all contribute to a mostly inaccurate summary of community benefits.
What this all means is that the special interests are trying desperately to prevail with a campaign of information spin designed to undermine the majority public's wishes for an alternative use for our number-one environmental asset: access to and views of the mighty Mississippi River. The proposed casino hotel is absolutely not a done deal until the council is asked to vote on it - and that day could be far, far away. Over and above the struggle for public support, there are myriad logistical, parliamentary, environmental, and regulatory hoops that will be required before any proposal is a done deal. The hundreds of citizens who turned out last week in support of a longer-range vision for our waterfront prevailed, resisting city leaders' attempts to manipulate the outcome of last week's poorly rigged workshop.
Damage Control
Days after the Waterfront Workshop, reeling from the failed coup attempt, Mayor Charlie Brooke offered up another effort at information spin with a news release stating, "The City of Davenport has obtained major concessions" from the IOC, "in the possible contract they have been drafting for months." Despite his bullet-point list, not one topic was anything new to the negotiations, save a reduction in lease terms from 90-plus years to 43 years. This form of deliberate deception would not be so embarrassing had the Quad-City Times not fallen so hard for Charlie's ruse, evidenced by next day's front-page headline: "Isle, city reach deal for casino." Despite the fact that reporter Tory Brecht, in his story, adroitly pointed out that Brooke's news release showed "no substantial changes from what has been discussed before" and that critics "believe public input continues to be ignored," the editors at the Times are starting to list off-center in this issue with such crafted yellow-journalism headlines. Those folks who only read the headline, but not the article, now possess a blatantly false perception of this issue's outcome.
But last week's meetings turned out to be an attempted coup of the public planning process, from hijacking the break-out sessions with facilitators planted by DavenportOne (D1) and Isle of Capri (IOC), to allowing the president of the Iowa Gaming Association to make opening remarks alongside the city officials and consultants. Those officials and consultants in the final presentation failed to include a single site plan or concept drawing that reflected a use of the waterfront other than the casino/hotel, and repeatedly stated falsified and vague information with no empirical evidence.
The good news it that is was a failed attempt. Despite complicity by City Administrator Craig Malin, the "in the bag" consultants (whose unprofessionalism was underscored by their unpreparedness and unresponsiveness to the public), and the extreme pressures by D1 operatives and IOC employees to manipulate the proceedings in favor of the proposed hotel, the most support IOC could gather for its singular monolithic vision was about 50 percent of those in attendance.
The other 50 percent in attendance favored alternative uses for the riverfront that excluded the 11-story hotel and parking ramp and provided in great detail throughout the sessions rich ideas, such as open park space, amphitheatres, biking/blading rentals, fishing piers, restaurants, and sculpture gardens. Facilitators documented in writing and voiced these ideas loud and clear, but in the end were summarily ignored by the paid consultants. This was glaringly apparent when, at the Tuesday wrap-up meeting, the slide show focused almost entirely on three different configurations of the hotel at the proposed location, making no effort to envision or document for consideration the dozens of alternative usages hundreds of citizens had shared the previous day.
This $30,000, seven-hour planning process over two days became one giant insult to those of us who fought so hard for genuine public engagement relative to this issue. Perhaps we should have known better. The primary stakeholders who support the hotel on the riverfront have been disingenuous from the beginning. Take DavenportOne, which held no fewer than four preparatory meetings the week prior yet claims to have not taken a position on the hotel proposal. Then there's Hargreaves & Associates, itself partly responsible for the division of this community. This firm was at the helm of the nine-month-long RiverVision study and, despite equally vociferous public input last December to move the casino off the waterfront, was complicit in last-minute manipulation of the final "Consensus Concept" to include a hotel site for the casino, when no such consensus existed. And of course there's Mary Ellen Chamberlin, president of the Riverboat Development Authority, who is claiming that there have been no less than five studies conducted by the IOC showing other locations to be too costly for a hotel expansion. Yet no response is forthcoming when asked why the public and city council aren't privy to these studies.
Examples of falsified and vague information presented by the consultants included a statement by the consultant's economist claiming that, with a hotel adjacent to the casino, the city would realize a $3-million gain. He failed, however, to disclose that at least two-thirds of this amount reflected current revenues that the city would continue to enjoy without the hotel expansion. This same economist also claimed that buying out the casino's existing lease could cost tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars, yet could cite no evidence to support such a statement.
Consultant Alan Mountjoy stated that because of the flooding, "We cannot make a strong recommendation for any investment in this 15 acres for residential or office structures." It begs the question: If such structures shouldn't be built in this floodplain, why would an 11-story hotel structure suddenly merit said investment?
But the most misleading claim of all, which was repeated many times during the sessions, was that the hotel needed to be on this particular waterfront because "its guests will visit the cultural venues in our downtown." There is no evidence whatsoever to support this claim. In fact, there is more evidence to refute it, including the lack of development surrounding IOC's Bettendorf location, and the marginal economic impact relative to downtown Davenport's restaurants, convention center, theatre, and retail operations.
Interestingly, when a citizen asked an IOC manager why a parking ramp was necessary as part of its expansion when Davenport already has two new, under-used ramps directly across the street, the manager explained that "our guests do not like to walk." The citizen pointed out that the newly erected sky bridge would drop casino customers at the front door, and the manager repeated, "Yes, but they don't want to walk." Perhaps Mountjoy was not clued in to this factor about the casino's clients when he cavalierly stated they would be frequenting the Figge and the RME.
The cold, hard truth of the matter is that the parking ramp, hotel, and restaurant are specifically designed to keep casino guests on the property, and away from surrounding attractions. Any claim otherwise is a public-relations gimmick. The old adage "Watch what is done, not what is said" is good advice with regard to IOC's numerous claims.
Additional claims of more green space for the public (five acres is minuscule compared to the 10 we are sacrificing), greater access to the waterfront (a 50-foot setback a block long with an eight-foot berm beneath an 11-story edifice behind defies access), and inflated benefits in the form of revenues for the city and not-for-profits projected at $207 million ($143 million is complete blue sky and not attributable to direct financial benefits) all contribute to a mostly inaccurate summary of community benefits.
What this all means is that the special interests are trying desperately to prevail with a campaign of information spin designed to undermine the majority public's wishes for an alternative use for our number-one environmental asset: access to and views of the mighty Mississippi River. The proposed casino hotel is absolutely not a done deal until the council is asked to vote on it - and that day could be far, far away. Over and above the struggle for public support, there are myriad logistical, parliamentary, environmental, and regulatory hoops that will be required before any proposal is a done deal. The hundreds of citizens who turned out last week in support of a longer-range vision for our waterfront prevailed, resisting city leaders' attempts to manipulate the outcome of last week's poorly rigged workshop.
Damage Control
Days after the Waterfront Workshop, reeling from the failed coup attempt, Mayor Charlie Brooke offered up another effort at information spin with a news release stating, "The City of Davenport has obtained major concessions" from the IOC, "in the possible contract they have been drafting for months." Despite his bullet-point list, not one topic was anything new to the negotiations, save a reduction in lease terms from 90-plus years to 43 years. This form of deliberate deception would not be so embarrassing had the Quad-City Times not fallen so hard for Charlie's ruse, evidenced by next day's front-page headline: "Isle, city reach deal for casino." Despite the fact that reporter Tory Brecht, in his story, adroitly pointed out that Brooke's news release showed "no substantial changes from what has been discussed before" and that critics "believe public input continues to be ignored," the editors at the Times are starting to list off-center in this issue with such crafted yellow-journalism headlines. Those folks who only read the headline, but not the article, now possess a blatantly false perception of this issue's outcome.
