.jpeg?1371057738)
Iowa City school district committee settles on two planning scenarios
Branstad seeking federal disaster status for 47 Counties
Police investigate Dayton-Evansdale abductions connection
DOT says pond-building effort is working for turtles
EPIC RESURGENCE: Five Years After the Flood
Time Machine section debuts on TheGazette.com
Does knowing preferred casino site impact your vote?
Related Stories
Local casino investors and their site and construction consultants say the best place for a casino in Linn County is near Interstate 380 across the Cedar River from either downtown or just to the north across from the Quaker Oats plant.
At a Monday afternoon news conference at the offices of the Cedar Rapids Metro Economic Alliance, casino investor Steve Gray said either of the two west-side Cedar Rapids spots are sufficiently close to the city’s new convention center and newly renovated hotel and arena to help those venues prosper along with a new casino.
Cedar Rapids taxpayers have invested much in the convention complex and hotel projects, and the casino should help the hotel fill up rooms and it can provide some financial backing to bring entertainment to the arena, Gray said. “Then it becomes a win, win, win.” he said. “It becomes a win for us (casino investors), it’s great for the city and it’s great for taxpayers.”
Gray said, too, that a casino’s west-side location will be close to the city’s new riverfront amphitheater and to a new residential condominium project going up on First Street SW, an area which he said had the early makings of an entertainment and residential area like the Lower Downtown in Denver, Colo., he said.
Gray and his investor group, Cedar Rapids Development Group LLC, hired local firms Ryan Companies US Inc. and OPN Architects Inc. to help them pinpoint the preferred site from among 21 options.
Does knowing the preferred location for a new Linn County casino impact your vote on the issue March 5?
Whether there is gambling or not, a nice structure, tastefully done from an architectural prospective, will enhance the appearance of the downtown-riverfront area. I like this location for a casino.
Great place to put it! That land will probably just sit idle otherwise.
the land would be a great green space and park on the river front, like what there is in muscatine.
Calling it “Riverfront” is just a public relations move to avoid saying “downtown”. I wouldn’t want the term “downtown” associated with my side either. If I owned a bar / restaurant away from downtown, I would vote NO in a heartbeat. Oh and Steve, don’t even say Denver and Cedar Rapids in the same breath. Comparing the area around the Rockies stadium and CR is laughable.
I agree with Perry that land is a great place for the Casino it will continue to sit there unused. Not only will the Casino bring jobs to our area but it will also increase revenue into the Linn County area.
The only reason I will vote yes for CR to get a casino is hopefully it will bring more money to the city, that way the city won’t raise my taxes as much without the extra revenue. I don’t gamble, so I won’t be going to it if it is built.
The strength of a city has to eminate outword for long term health and economic diversity. You want a healthy city center, as well as strong development on its edges. Cities begin to fail when the center collapses and only the suburbs see growth. Economic and geographic diversity in development foster long term growth and health.
The symbiotic relationship between the new convention center, the resurgent paramount, the new bars and restaurants downtown and the new federal courthouse will envigorate Cedar Rapids like never before.
I also respect and understand business concerns that are 3-5 miles outside of downtown, lets just keep in mind that as Cedar Rapids becomes more of an entertaiment “destination”, rather than a drive by town, and when more people are employed and have discretionary income, more money is spent in Cedar Rapids then before. A few hundred people who live and work here, with more money to spend, will spend it all over town. This is in addition to the percentage of destination visitors who hit Lindale Mall, or Target and Kohls by Westdale, or get some gas on 33rd, or check out some cars up by Boysen road. Thousands of new people per month don’t laser beam to downtown, never stop anywhere else, never visit friends and family in all parts of town. Its common sense.
If you are a business owner with a real concern, as a smart entrepreuneur the first thing you should do is visit a business similar to yours in similar proximity to a gaming venue in Dubuque and ask the owner what happened post casino. Then you will have your answer, not the answer outside influencers are trying to advertise out of you.
Thank you for your excellent post. I hope the Gazette will take up your implied suggestion. They should send some reporters to Dubuque and/or Waterloo for some investigative reporting on how the casino has impacted businesses in the area around the casino.
It will take some courage. Regardless of how independent and objective their reporting is, someone will still accuse them of taking sides. Nonetheless, they should try their best to report objectively.
We’ve addressed that subject in our coverage:
http://thegazette.com/2013/02/09/iowa-casinos-saw-strong-voter-support/
Do we need to address it even further?
First, thank you for this article. I apologize that I missed it.
To answer your question – on the surface it appears you have covered this issue well, but this is an important issue and the more substance based objective coverage you can provide the better.
This answered the biggest piece of the puzzle for me, location. I think the proximity to the new convention center and hotel will benefit CR greatly.
There are some remaining questions I have. The Gazette ran an article about the percentages and the investor chosen commission board that would be in charge of how those % would be spent. That would be an interesting topic for discussion. How and who agreed to this? Is it written in stone or can it be amended before/after the March 5 vote?
I am voting no because of the site, but it really shouldnt matter how a person votes, because if the gaming commissioners live up to their jobs they were appointed to do, there will be no casino, no matter how the vote goes.
Everyone else on this page thinks this is a good location. You, apparently, do not. Yet, you did not provide a single word of explanation as to why you think this is a bad site. Can you provide any explanation as to why this is a bad site? If not, your opinion should be dismissed as irrelevant.
It might be close to the interstate, but getting on and off the interstate at that location is not the greatest., which will cause traffic congestion. If another flood comes it would be in harms way. The air around that area has a foul smell to it.
Ken, I appreciate your explanation. I agree with your point regarding flooding, but understand that the casino may provide their own flood protection.
I believe the issue about getting on and off the interstate is a solvable problem. Regarding the odor – that is probable only an issue with a rare wind from the north.
I retain my position that is a good location and respect your opinions to the contrary.
The flood potential and perpetual, alternately foul/cloyingly sweet odors go without saying… I hadn’t thought of the interstate access issue in that area, but it certainly is a problem that would require some expensive re-building to optimize traffic flow into/out of a new major entertainment venue.
Really? He doesn’t agree so you take that up with him? Really? Talk about thin skinned. Oh, just for the record, I was voting “NO” from the second I heard about the vote.
Whether or not he agrees isn’t it reasonable to ask for an explanation as to why the proposed site is claimed to be a bad site — what’s “thin-skinned” about that ? ( For the record: Being in a flood plain is certainly not a positive. )
“what’s “thin-skinned” about that ?”
If that’s the only “argument” Rich can come up with, that’s being “thin skinned”.
The disclosed site is attractive for a number of reasons discussed above in this thread. However, the casino promoters have not locked themselves into choosing this site should the facility be approved by voters and the IGA.. I would be looking for a “bait and switch” move after the deal is done which would locate the facility in a place which might be more amenable to the business needs of the casino, not one that is a popular favorite. One of these “business needs” is operating downtime/property protection from the effects of another massive flood. I can’t see how siting the facility in a hard-hit zone of the ’08 flood satisfies that need.
You’re right Jack, the promoters probably see this issue as going to the wire, and believe that by pointing to a location, even if it isn’t the final location, that they can gain a few more votes toward their purpose.
I have always wondered if the blocks roughly on each side of 7th street SE between 2nd avenue and 5th avenue would be the target area. Certainly the ugly new building at 3rd ave could be easily be integrated into the complex. And the excess PCI parking could be utilized. And here, they may even design the building so one could park underneath it. The support infrastructure would be adequate. After all, those existing PCI buildings are all moving into the new one that blocks 2nd avenue. And if the casino doesn’t fly, they can sell all the extra space in the new casino building to the Industrial Medical and Insurance Complex en lieu of that land that they’ve been unable to get congress to give them by closing the post office.
And who cares about a few historic multifamily dwellings in that one block…we dependent and gambling addicted souls to create in a new building right next to the hospital!
It doesn’t matter where they locate the casino. It is not about economic development, it is about collective greed; private investors, city government, county government.
So, you say, “it is about collective greed; private investors, city government, county government.” I see nothing in this statement that claims that the casino idea is bad.
Many capitalist say greed is good (just ask Rush Limbaugh). Likewise, many believe in private investment. What do you mean by “city government” and “county government”? Both should receive revenues from a casino. Why is that bad?
Please provide a clear and reasonable explanation as to why a casino is bad.
“Does knowing preferred casino site impact your vote?” No. This location is one of the locations that I believed was ‘most likely’ in my own evaluation of this subject.
My question is this: “Does the city and the citizens of Cedar Rapids fully understand all the street, electric power, communications and sewer modifications that will need to happen just to make that site usable and accessible for a casino? Certainly the site can be made usable, but at what cost to the taxpayers? I also wonder about access for those headed north on interstate 380? How many of you have jumped off the Interstate and headed north on 3rd street SW the many blocks to that area north of First Avenue? How many will attempt to use the A Avenue exit only to discover that no left turns are allowed from that exit? How many using the A Avenue exit will attempt to turn left to the Casino anyway?
It is my belief that this site will cost much more than the “first blush” reveals. And it will be those costs to the city and state which should doom the selection of this site.
According to the Mayor Pro tem, we are going to remove all the stoplights and install stop signs, then make all the streets two way. Traffic will be a breeze and we’ll be able to stop at every corner and take in “destination down town”. I’ve bet with these guys before, and lost big. Count me out.
The site would be a very good location, except it’s along a narrow channel river, it’s in the flood plain, and ingress and egress will be a nightmare without major traffic changes. Be interesting to see what the city asks from these investors. As this puzzle unfolds, it reads like a novel, only the outcome will be far different than most.
The location announcement didn’t surprise me in the least. I’m sure several council members would have been disappointed if this had been built north on 380 or south on 380 where space and parking are ample and you aren’t in a flood plain. I was “NO” before when I read the investor list. This just solidifies it. I guess downtown isn’t for everybody.
The owners of the Riverside and Waterloo casinos disgust me for trying to buy an election to eliminate competition. They abuse free enterprise.
But the promoters of the new Cedar Rapids casino disgust me for buying swampland in the floodplain. They abuse the environment. This isn’t wasted land, it’s land that belongs to the river. It is a precious part of Iowa’s waterways. It should not be used for the profits of greedy promoters and developers.
Apparently those who support casinos can’t do the right things in Riverside, or Waterloo, or now in Cedar Rapids. Just say no to the entire despicable lot.
The location now makes me wonder, if when negotiating with the local gambling committee, they agreed on only the minimum by law from the casino in return for them putting it down by the down town area. Had to be some reason why they accepted only the minimum when all the other casinos are paying up to twice that much. But when you look who is on the committee, you see they were just trying to help the downtown area more then helping the charities. Really there is so many reasons to vote no becasue of where it will be, not enough time or room to state them all.
Ken I agree with you on the percentage they are giving the city. I think it should be 6% if this thing gets built! Believe me 6% off the top will still leave plenty for the investors!
An enterprise designed to transfer large sums of money to investors without performing a commensurate level of value-added effort on the part of the investors does not create real economic growth.
The Inter-Religious Council of Linn County, composed of Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Jewish, Universalist Unitarian, BaHai, Unity and Buddhist interests has condemned the current casino initiative in a letter published in the Gazette on February 13. Their letter echoes the exact same sentiments expressed by Martin Luther King Jr. in a 1957 advice column for Ebony magazine.
The dirty secret of the casino business is that revenues from problem gamblers are a significant component of their business plan and that slot machines, especially, are designed in a way to trigger gambling addictions. Make no mistake. There will be new addicts. The odds are that our neighbors, friends, and loved ones will be among them and their problems will splash over to all of us.
Lingering questions about the True North property transaction and the Crowne Plaza initiative raise legitimate concerns about whether a transaction between Mr. Gray’s group and the City (for the newly disclosed preferred real-estate) will result in anything other than a sweetheart deal for Mr. Gray and Co. If anything, disclosure that the preferred location just happens to be city-owned property should set off warning signals for all objective voters, regardless of where they otherwise fall on the casino issue. If this thing comes to pass, we should expect to see the final closing price of the property at least in line with what the city paid for the True North site.
“An enterprise designed to transfer large sums of money to investors without performing a commensurate level of value-added effort on the part of the investors does not create real economic growth.” – well stated.
Unfortunately for those (like me) who feel that a casino cannot be an “economic engine of growth” for the the city, there is no dearth of casinos within easy driving distance of the CR metro area. Those who are compelled to gamble, will gamble, and the small distance that they need to travel to reach their casino of choice is no obstacle toward their slaking their gambling urges. Siting a new casino in CR will only make it more convenient to “stay home” and will divert the cash flow direction from Casino Operator Set A (existing casinos) to Casino Operator Set B (new LC casino); but will have a nearly unmeasurable effect on the gambling community itself. That horse has long been out of the stable.
Good place for it, right in the river when it floods!!
I see the mayor has voted YES. He has been awfully quiet about the casino ( on orders I’d bet). I would have thought the YES people would want to disassociate themselves from the unpopular and I dare say, very disliked faction of CR (Corbett/Council/downtown). But then again, Steve Gray, Skogman and I’d bet a whole bunch of “investors” run in that circle, so it is no surprise.
After reading the mayors comments from today, and seeing what he said by not directly saying it, make Penfords oders pure and sweet. Another chapter yet unfolds in the casino tale.