22
Mar
2005
The Isle of Capri (IOC) continues to lobby city officials for their support to build a 10-story casino hotel on downtown Davenport's city-owned riverfront, using taxpayer financing and Riverboat Development Authority subsidy for nearly half of the cost. So far, IOC's efforts have failed in crafting a draft development agreement the city is willing to consider, which speaks volumes to the inadequacy, and inequity, of what IOC has proposed so far.
Smartriverfront.com continues its efforts to collect petitions to slow down the proposed giveaway of Davenport's riverfront to the casino operation and give more time to entertain other options. Visit (http://www.smartriverfront.com) to obtain a petition to sign, or stop by the Reader office and pick one up. Also, last week's issue has the petition on page 5 for your convenience.
It is imperative that the community weigh in by signing this petition to communicate its wishes to elected officials regarding the issue of a casino hotel on its valuable riverfront. Recall that the current casino operation consists of a riverboat on the water, which is connected to a barge of guest services (restaurants and lobby), which is connected to the levee where the porte cochere stands as a car port for valet parking. Not one of these structures is permanent. And with good reason... they are on a publicly owned waterfront.
In essence, IOC is asking taxpayers to give away our riverfront to increase its revenues by building a permanent hotel facility on publicly owned land. This is a major distinction compared to the Bettendorf casino location, which is on privately owned land. In fact, it is highly inappropriate to even propose such a commercial development on public land that represents such a crucial community asset.
Remember the community's outrage, including that of Mayor Brooke, when the Davenport Museum of Art (now the Figge Art Museum) originally proposed building its new museum at Lindsay Park, even though, at the time, the DMA was a city-owned enterprise. How would the community feel if a commercial enterprise proposed building a permanent facility on part of VanderVeer, Fejervary, or Duck Creek park land? How is proposing a casino hotel along Davenport's riverfront LeClaire Park any different?
The cost of the proposed casino hotel is currently at $43 million, which includes an additional 5 story parking ramp to serve casino guests. This portion of the proposal ignores the newly built public parking ramp, which is attached to the newly erected skybridge that crosses River Drive and feeds pedestrians right to the casino's front door. It doesn't get more convenient than this, so why another ramp?
Furthermore, all the lovely landscaping IOC shows surrounding its proposed facility is pure window-dressing and strictly for show because it is not actually part of the $43 million. IOC has admitted that the city would be responsible for this portion of the development once the hotel is built.
This is just a small sampling of the myriad discrepancies that plague the IOC's proposed casino hotel project. Contributing to this perception is IOC's rejection of the financial feasibility study it commissioned with HVC because it reported a revenue increase of approximately 3.5 percent with an adjacent hotel. IOC engaged RSM McGladrey to remedy this, gaining a higher ROI to justify moving forward with the project. Add to this the amount of debt IOC is currently saddled with for the purchase of new properties and/or expansion of other properties it owns worldwide, and this particular project becomes far riskier considering the market size and the amount of public subsidy being requested.
The community cannot lose by electing to conduct more thorough public planning for this key location and insisting on additional casino location options.
Smartriverfront.com continues its efforts to collect petitions to slow down the proposed giveaway of Davenport's riverfront to the casino operation and give more time to entertain other options. Visit (http://www.smartriverfront.com) to obtain a petition to sign, or stop by the Reader office and pick one up. Also, last week's issue has the petition on page 5 for your convenience.
It is imperative that the community weigh in by signing this petition to communicate its wishes to elected officials regarding the issue of a casino hotel on its valuable riverfront. Recall that the current casino operation consists of a riverboat on the water, which is connected to a barge of guest services (restaurants and lobby), which is connected to the levee where the porte cochere stands as a car port for valet parking. Not one of these structures is permanent. And with good reason... they are on a publicly owned waterfront.
In essence, IOC is asking taxpayers to give away our riverfront to increase its revenues by building a permanent hotel facility on publicly owned land. This is a major distinction compared to the Bettendorf casino location, which is on privately owned land. In fact, it is highly inappropriate to even propose such a commercial development on public land that represents such a crucial community asset.
Remember the community's outrage, including that of Mayor Brooke, when the Davenport Museum of Art (now the Figge Art Museum) originally proposed building its new museum at Lindsay Park, even though, at the time, the DMA was a city-owned enterprise. How would the community feel if a commercial enterprise proposed building a permanent facility on part of VanderVeer, Fejervary, or Duck Creek park land? How is proposing a casino hotel along Davenport's riverfront LeClaire Park any different?
The cost of the proposed casino hotel is currently at $43 million, which includes an additional 5 story parking ramp to serve casino guests. This portion of the proposal ignores the newly built public parking ramp, which is attached to the newly erected skybridge that crosses River Drive and feeds pedestrians right to the casino's front door. It doesn't get more convenient than this, so why another ramp?
Furthermore, all the lovely landscaping IOC shows surrounding its proposed facility is pure window-dressing and strictly for show because it is not actually part of the $43 million. IOC has admitted that the city would be responsible for this portion of the development once the hotel is built.
This is just a small sampling of the myriad discrepancies that plague the IOC's proposed casino hotel project. Contributing to this perception is IOC's rejection of the financial feasibility study it commissioned with HVC because it reported a revenue increase of approximately 3.5 percent with an adjacent hotel. IOC engaged RSM McGladrey to remedy this, gaining a higher ROI to justify moving forward with the project. Add to this the amount of debt IOC is currently saddled with for the purchase of new properties and/or expansion of other properties it owns worldwide, and this particular project becomes far riskier considering the market size and the amount of public subsidy being requested.
The community cannot lose by electing to conduct more thorough public planning for this key location and insisting on additional casino location options.
