02
Nov
2004
Now that the election is over, citizens can re-focus on the more immediate local issues that require their attention. Most important is the looming yet-to-be-officially-proposed-but-secretly-discussed-with-elected-officials "concept" of an 11-story casino hotel on downtown Davenport's limited riverfront.
Over the past three weeks, casino representatives have, once again, met individually with many aldermen to discuss the proposed hotel. And once again, no discussion has been had about an alternative site. Recall that the study conducted by HVS, paid for by the taxpayers of Davenport and the Isle of Capri, was not site specific; it forecasted the financial impact on casino operations with adjacent hotels. Nothing in the study suggested that the hotel would only be economically positive if it was constructed squarely in downtown Davenport's premium riverfront property between Brady and Perry streets. In fact, the study theoretically supports the casino with an additional hotel facility located along any stretch of riverfront within the city that complies with the state's licensing laws.
No compelling reason has come forth, to date, why this location is so critical to the success of the casino operation. City officials often laud the fact that the Bettendorf casino operation, Isle of Capri, is the number-one visited attraction in the Quad Cities, with 1.8 million visitors per year - and this property has an adjacent hotel. Granted, but this number-one attraction is not on public land, nor is it surrounded by a $113-million River Renaissance project. In fact, it can be argued that our number-one visited attraction sits in the middle of a parking lot surrounded by other parking lots and recently demolished buildings. Therefore, along with the HVS study, it follows that wherever IOC chooses to land a new casino hotel in Davenport, it will be profitable.
Our waterfront is not critical to the IOC's success. It can be argued that close proximity to major arterial highways is critical. Thus Jumer's Casino Rock Island's move to a moat near Interstate 280. So why not move the Rhythm City Casino upriver to the cement-factory site? It's on the same highway as River Drive - Highway 67 - and on the way to I-74. Or how about further downriver, closer to I-280? It has yet to be proven that the Brady/Perry riverfront is critical to the success of a hotel/casino operation.
And who should ultimately be responsible for the success of a casino operation? The taxpayers? What's in it for them? Granted, our community has gotten used to the major grants back to the schools and not-for-profits via the casino's license-holder, the Riverboat Development Authority. However, many forget that this is supposed to be the price of admission for the stockholders of IOC to enjoy a profit to begin with. The casino is profitable as it is, and the community benefits as a result. It seems to be working. So what is driving the agenda for growth, via a new hotel? More profits of course. There's nothing wrong with companies becoming more profitable. But taxpayers need to be aware to what degree they are being asked to subsidize said growth and profits. Do you think that Davenport taxpayers should pay for more than $5 million in waterfront sewer and infrastructre improvements so private stockholders can own a new hotel on a portion of Davenport's limited riverfront properties? Do you think that Davenport taxpayers should utilize their bonding capacity to finance the building of more parking ramps adjacent to this new hotel - while the parking ramps that taxpayers have already financed cannot pay for themselves today? What is the overall balance of benefits to any future proposed hotel-casino package? How soon will taxpayers recoup their investment in this project compared to the private investors? Our analysis of existing documents shows that it will take 10 years for Davenport to recoup its investment, while casino owners will be paid back within two.
This begs the question: If Davenport taxpayers are willing to form a public-private partnership for some level of riverfront development - and invest upwards of $18 million to $20 million in the cause - what other opportunities are out there that could provide a higher return on our investment? How much farther would such an investment go to achieving all of the other proposed elements of River Vision?
And speaking of River Vision, the Hargreaves final draft report did not include a commercial enterprise (the lone red square on the grassy riverfront) along the waterfront south of River Drive until the very last public workshop. The only reason Hargreaves included such a red square on its conceptual waterfront plan was because it was aware of the casino's agenda to pursue a hotel there.
It's time Davenport got a good dose of self-esteem. We have a phenomenal city, with dozens of amenities, a great workforce, and an easily accessible riverfront on the second most recognized natural feature in the world: the Mississippi River. Have we shopped around for other entities interested in our town? Granted, you want to dance with the partner who got you to the party, and the Davenport-based casino, via the RDA license, has done wonders to help our downtown through a transition. But it has yet to be proven that the already profitable casino is going to go somewhere else if its owners don't get the public land and public subsidy they are asking for. Should that happen, it will be gut-check time. Sentry Insurance and Lee Enterprises both played that card in order to get taxpayer-based subsidies to stay in the Quad Cities, and our elected officials fell for both.
At what point in time does the momentum Davenport boasts about mean momentum for free enterprise and momentum for taxpayers, rather than momentum for special interests that have the time and paid consultants to lobby our public officials?
Over the past three weeks, casino representatives have, once again, met individually with many aldermen to discuss the proposed hotel. And once again, no discussion has been had about an alternative site. Recall that the study conducted by HVS, paid for by the taxpayers of Davenport and the Isle of Capri, was not site specific; it forecasted the financial impact on casino operations with adjacent hotels. Nothing in the study suggested that the hotel would only be economically positive if it was constructed squarely in downtown Davenport's premium riverfront property between Brady and Perry streets. In fact, the study theoretically supports the casino with an additional hotel facility located along any stretch of riverfront within the city that complies with the state's licensing laws.
No compelling reason has come forth, to date, why this location is so critical to the success of the casino operation. City officials often laud the fact that the Bettendorf casino operation, Isle of Capri, is the number-one visited attraction in the Quad Cities, with 1.8 million visitors per year - and this property has an adjacent hotel. Granted, but this number-one attraction is not on public land, nor is it surrounded by a $113-million River Renaissance project. In fact, it can be argued that our number-one visited attraction sits in the middle of a parking lot surrounded by other parking lots and recently demolished buildings. Therefore, along with the HVS study, it follows that wherever IOC chooses to land a new casino hotel in Davenport, it will be profitable.
Our waterfront is not critical to the IOC's success. It can be argued that close proximity to major arterial highways is critical. Thus Jumer's Casino Rock Island's move to a moat near Interstate 280. So why not move the Rhythm City Casino upriver to the cement-factory site? It's on the same highway as River Drive - Highway 67 - and on the way to I-74. Or how about further downriver, closer to I-280? It has yet to be proven that the Brady/Perry riverfront is critical to the success of a hotel/casino operation.
And who should ultimately be responsible for the success of a casino operation? The taxpayers? What's in it for them? Granted, our community has gotten used to the major grants back to the schools and not-for-profits via the casino's license-holder, the Riverboat Development Authority. However, many forget that this is supposed to be the price of admission for the stockholders of IOC to enjoy a profit to begin with. The casino is profitable as it is, and the community benefits as a result. It seems to be working. So what is driving the agenda for growth, via a new hotel? More profits of course. There's nothing wrong with companies becoming more profitable. But taxpayers need to be aware to what degree they are being asked to subsidize said growth and profits. Do you think that Davenport taxpayers should pay for more than $5 million in waterfront sewer and infrastructre improvements so private stockholders can own a new hotel on a portion of Davenport's limited riverfront properties? Do you think that Davenport taxpayers should utilize their bonding capacity to finance the building of more parking ramps adjacent to this new hotel - while the parking ramps that taxpayers have already financed cannot pay for themselves today? What is the overall balance of benefits to any future proposed hotel-casino package? How soon will taxpayers recoup their investment in this project compared to the private investors? Our analysis of existing documents shows that it will take 10 years for Davenport to recoup its investment, while casino owners will be paid back within two.
This begs the question: If Davenport taxpayers are willing to form a public-private partnership for some level of riverfront development - and invest upwards of $18 million to $20 million in the cause - what other opportunities are out there that could provide a higher return on our investment? How much farther would such an investment go to achieving all of the other proposed elements of River Vision?
And speaking of River Vision, the Hargreaves final draft report did not include a commercial enterprise (the lone red square on the grassy riverfront) along the waterfront south of River Drive until the very last public workshop. The only reason Hargreaves included such a red square on its conceptual waterfront plan was because it was aware of the casino's agenda to pursue a hotel there.
It's time Davenport got a good dose of self-esteem. We have a phenomenal city, with dozens of amenities, a great workforce, and an easily accessible riverfront on the second most recognized natural feature in the world: the Mississippi River. Have we shopped around for other entities interested in our town? Granted, you want to dance with the partner who got you to the party, and the Davenport-based casino, via the RDA license, has done wonders to help our downtown through a transition. But it has yet to be proven that the already profitable casino is going to go somewhere else if its owners don't get the public land and public subsidy they are asking for. Should that happen, it will be gut-check time. Sentry Insurance and Lee Enterprises both played that card in order to get taxpayer-based subsidies to stay in the Quad Cities, and our elected officials fell for both.
At what point in time does the momentum Davenport boasts about mean momentum for free enterprise and momentum for taxpayers, rather than momentum for special interests that have the time and paid consultants to lobby our public officials?
