30
Nov
2004
Nearly two weeks ago Davenport city officials received the Isle of Capri/Rhythm City Casino (IOC) draft development agreement for a hotel facility on downtown Davenport's riverfront. The controversial project has now moved from the "concept" stage to a draft proposal stage. The submission should be considered insulting to city staff, for it is woefully incomplete in scope, is negligent in not including any of the exhibits referred to throughout the document, and possesses a tone of fait accompli.
And get this: The document is entitled "Davenport Levee/Floodplain Development Agreement." The unsuspecting public, upon reading this descriptor as an agenda item, could easily assume its subject was about flood management of some kind, not the development of a casino hotel on the riverfront. Beyond this misleading title, within the document itself, IOC is referring to its riverfront hotel project as "the Davenport Riverfront Reclamation & Development Project." Without knowing the real purpose, a casual observer might well believe this "reclamation" project is about returning the riverfront to green space and peaceful enjoyment of this precious but limited amount of riverfront property belonging to the residents and taxpayers of Davenport and Scott County.
The extreme spin being used by IOC to title its casino-hotel project only serves to reflect the self-serving nature of the project. Burying intent in serving the public's interest with concepts such as revitalization, urban renewal, and reclamation is disingenuous. There is no support for these claims.
But at least IOC is consistent in its arrogance. The proposal lists benefits and claims: "Construction of certain public improvements (as described below) for public use will benefit the residents of the City with a public river-view terrace, additional public parking, and increased access to the riverfront." As opposed to the property being truly reclaimed as green space that functions as a public park per the final RiverVision plan for this area of riverfront? How can IOC or city leaders believe that adding a viewing station and/or some glorified sidewalk to an intrusive 11-story edifice a mere 50 feet from the river's edge could possibly replace such a public amenity?
Recall that the consultants, Hargreaves Associates, relative to the RiverVision plan, called for the greening of the entire riverfront, from LeClaire Park to the Arsenal Bridge. The sole reason for including a potential commercial development (noted by the red box in the plan's rendering) was to avoid any appearance of deception, because Hargreaves was made aware of IOC's intent to build a hotel in this vicinity. The notion of a commercial development of any kind was not initiated, envisioned, or supported by the consultants the cities of Davenport and Rock Island hired to provide guidelines in jointly developing our remarkable riverfront.
IOC is asking for a 90-percent tax abatement beginning the first year after construction is completed; exclusive docking privileges between the lock and dam and the Centennial Bridge (what does this do to any possible ferry from Iowa to Illinois such as the Channel Cat?); exclusive gaming rights within Davenport's city limits; Davenport taxpayers to pay for the attached parking ramp at $6.1 million; the RDA to make incremental payments amounting to $5.3 million to the city for a portion of the increased revenues it receives from casino (money that could otherwise go to the not-for-profits in the community instead of paying down the city's debt to supply a casino hotel with more convenient parking facilities); and the city to consider any variances from terms of the agreement (how is this for carte blanche?).
This is the first draft and should be filed in the trashcan for its lack of exhibits and far too broad scope. Staff cannot begin to reasonably consider such an agreement without its key components. IOC has already begun discussions on a timeline for this development agreement, hoping for completion in January 2005. Such a timeframe is unreasonable, a clear attempt at fast-tracking, and with what appears to be an extremely limited public-input process.
The bottom line is that 10 Davenport City aldermen will ultimately decide the fate of our riverfront. It comes down to these 10 elected officials; it is their decision to approve the hotel project or not. This means all public support or opposition to a casino hotel on this area of riverfront must necessarily be directed to them, individually and collectively.
And get this: The document is entitled "Davenport Levee/Floodplain Development Agreement." The unsuspecting public, upon reading this descriptor as an agenda item, could easily assume its subject was about flood management of some kind, not the development of a casino hotel on the riverfront. Beyond this misleading title, within the document itself, IOC is referring to its riverfront hotel project as "the Davenport Riverfront Reclamation & Development Project." Without knowing the real purpose, a casual observer might well believe this "reclamation" project is about returning the riverfront to green space and peaceful enjoyment of this precious but limited amount of riverfront property belonging to the residents and taxpayers of Davenport and Scott County.
The extreme spin being used by IOC to title its casino-hotel project only serves to reflect the self-serving nature of the project. Burying intent in serving the public's interest with concepts such as revitalization, urban renewal, and reclamation is disingenuous. There is no support for these claims.
But at least IOC is consistent in its arrogance. The proposal lists benefits and claims: "Construction of certain public improvements (as described below) for public use will benefit the residents of the City with a public river-view terrace, additional public parking, and increased access to the riverfront." As opposed to the property being truly reclaimed as green space that functions as a public park per the final RiverVision plan for this area of riverfront? How can IOC or city leaders believe that adding a viewing station and/or some glorified sidewalk to an intrusive 11-story edifice a mere 50 feet from the river's edge could possibly replace such a public amenity?
Recall that the consultants, Hargreaves Associates, relative to the RiverVision plan, called for the greening of the entire riverfront, from LeClaire Park to the Arsenal Bridge. The sole reason for including a potential commercial development (noted by the red box in the plan's rendering) was to avoid any appearance of deception, because Hargreaves was made aware of IOC's intent to build a hotel in this vicinity. The notion of a commercial development of any kind was not initiated, envisioned, or supported by the consultants the cities of Davenport and Rock Island hired to provide guidelines in jointly developing our remarkable riverfront.
IOC is asking for a 90-percent tax abatement beginning the first year after construction is completed; exclusive docking privileges between the lock and dam and the Centennial Bridge (what does this do to any possible ferry from Iowa to Illinois such as the Channel Cat?); exclusive gaming rights within Davenport's city limits; Davenport taxpayers to pay for the attached parking ramp at $6.1 million; the RDA to make incremental payments amounting to $5.3 million to the city for a portion of the increased revenues it receives from casino (money that could otherwise go to the not-for-profits in the community instead of paying down the city's debt to supply a casino hotel with more convenient parking facilities); and the city to consider any variances from terms of the agreement (how is this for carte blanche?).
This is the first draft and should be filed in the trashcan for its lack of exhibits and far too broad scope. Staff cannot begin to reasonably consider such an agreement without its key components. IOC has already begun discussions on a timeline for this development agreement, hoping for completion in January 2005. Such a timeframe is unreasonable, a clear attempt at fast-tracking, and with what appears to be an extremely limited public-input process.
The bottom line is that 10 Davenport City aldermen will ultimately decide the fate of our riverfront. It comes down to these 10 elected officials; it is their decision to approve the hotel project or not. This means all public support or opposition to a casino hotel on this area of riverfront must necessarily be directed to them, individually and collectively.
