Less asphalt expected in Cedar Rapids’ Westdale Mall transformation
Gov. Branstad, Iowa legislators reach health-care expansion accord
New Pioneer Food Co-op starts expansion discussion
Update: Authorities find backpacks, purse in Dayton abduction case
Peeping trial of accused Iowa City landlord moved to July
Updated: 27 February 2013 | 6:35 am in conversations
Have you decided how you’ll vote on the casino proposal?
Related Stories
thegazette.com Copyright 2011 SourceMedia Group. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Snow mixed with a lack of voter indecision resulted in a modest turnout last night at the Cedar Rapids casino forum at Coe College’s Sinclair Auditorium.
Pro-and-anti-casino advocates debated at the forum, sponsored by The Gazette and KCRG-TV9, if a casino was good for local economic development or if it would hurt the local economy.
As the debate has continued between casino supporter and opponents over the past few months, both sides have attempted to convince voters of the merits of their position. Have you decided how you’ll vote on the issue March 5? Have you already voted?
Rules of Engagement
Have you decided how you’ll vote on the casino proposal?
-u20042.png?1366232523)
Yes my decision has been made and its an easy one. I myself don’t gamble much. So I really don’t care if we get one or not. I will be voting for it for one reason. Just like many other issues that have been debated lately people should have the right and opportunity to do what makes them happy as long as it is legal. If you don’t like gambling don’t go to the establishment. Why should your own opinion prevent someone else from doing something close to home if it makes them happy.
Jeff, The one thing you should consider is the “quality of life”, for those that live in the area. Increased traffic and other issues will come up. I’m the last person to talk about LIB issues, but if they were putting the casino in the old Wilson meat plant, I would have zero problems with it. As it stands, it’s going to affect a lot of people. I’m voting NO, since I don’t think our mayor is voting with the cities best interest in mind.
Been to a few casinos and have not seen anything I would consider a threat if I lived by one. Especially with the location around 2nd Ave. I don’t think theres too many houses left in that area.
What specifically are the “LIB” issues that you are the last person to talk about ?
LOL! Someone who is the last person to talk about a “LIB” issue probably IS the issue!
I also seldom gamble. Yet, I see the good the casino will do for the city outweighing the alleged bad.
The “no” people have not made their case. They have not demonstrated in a credible way how the casino will harm the city. Their campaign seemed to consist of three points (1) Steve Gray is a bad person, (2) the city will only get 3% and (3) we may only get 120,000 additional tourists. My response to these points: (1) it’s tacky to make this personal about anyone, (2) 3% is more than we are getting now and (3) 120,000 additional tourists is a good thing.
Rich you must of not had stock in a certain company a few years back. I did and lost my shirt..
Actually, I had stock and options in that company and I lost quite a bit of money. I don’t consider that germane to the casino issue.
Jobs, jobs, jobs, that what the yes campain says, yet how many jobs were lost under prior leadership of the promoter, how many 401K’s became just paper, and you want to reward this? One rule in the gamble is the house never loses, as it was then and as it is now.
(1) Work with Gray for a few months. You’ll see how “nice” he is. (2) 3% is only as big as what they’re able to draw in. After the first six months the monthly revenue will go down. (3) Those 120K tourists are at the max. Face it, who would drive by Riverside, Waterloo, Tama or Dubuque to come here to gamble? It makes zero sense.
No, the 120,000 is the minimum. Listen to the ads. The “Yes” side says a million new tourists. The “no” side says “No, it may only be 120,000″.
Although I can respect the “no” opposition to a casino, I will be voting “yes.”
I’m not a gambler and I rarely agree with Sue, but I will vote yes. The casino paid opposition sealed it for me.
I am a gambler in CR. I know that the casino makes money for the casino, it doesn’t matter where it’s located. I already voted yes, and look forward to another choice to gamble. I stopped going to Riverside for the time being because of the $1.5 million contribution to the “no” people. It is ludicrous to oppose the potential for new jobs, new revenue for the city and linn county. I play for the entertainment and the chance of winning a few dollars. This could be a beginning of attracting other businesses and entertainment venues in our city. The “NO” folks will not choose my entertainment or where I go to find it!
My wife and I are voting yes. I am a huge cost analysis and fiscal analysis guy and after reviewing numerous projections, and comparitive studies on the impact of similar facilities in similar communities as well as the overwhelming support those communities have POST casino it is clear that the benefit to Cedar Rapids is substantial and the potential harm is minimal, overstated and tends to be a burden that individuals and families should address.
On a sidebar, I am pretty sure that 90% of our nations problems are due to bogus scientific studies. Do you really think that Dubuque, with two casinos is spending 3 dollars for every dollar generated? By my math, not some poindexter using false science, Dubuque would have gone to the dogs after about a year after they built theirs. Are you kidding me?
In the words of John Stuart Mill, quite possibly the smartest man of all time, and a logical model for the uber rational and logical Spock from old school Star Trek, The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Many people will benefit from this venue in terms of jobs, dollars for charities, improved roads and services and making Cedar Rapids a more diverse economic Destination. A more vibrant, fiscally sound and economically diverse Cedar Rapids far, far outweighs my concerns that some individuals and families cannot manage their addictions. God gave us free will for a reason and that isn’t for man to eliminate that free will from other men…and women.
A bit over the top at the end but I do believe that strongly in this facility enhancing thousands of lives in Cedar Rapids and Linn County and I do believe that strongly in self-determination and free will.
The casino made my decision for me. when they said it would be across the river from downtown, it made my vote an instant no vote. If it would of been as John said at the old Wilson meat plant, or anywhere else away from downtown, I would of voted yes, because i love playing craps.
What do you have against downtown?
The investor group talk from both sides of their mouth, ask for no incentives, then no more than any other developer would ask for. What else aren’t they saying or telling? Where was all the support 10 years ago? Riverside and Waterloo assumed risk and made it work, now somebody else wants a piece of the pie, may be normal competition, but I hope they choke. I’ve already voted.
Why would anyone want to deliberately do harm to our fellow Iowan’s in these other casino communities? Do you hate them so much that you would give a body blow to their economies. If these communities had a natural disaster the state and other communities would rush to aid them but now this group wants to cause the communities harm and you are cheering them on. Find something that will not harm your fellow Iowan’s.
After looking at the impact of the Riverside casino on the city of Riverside, Waterloo and Dubuque, I voted NO via abesentee. There are other avenues of community revitalization and economic expansion out there that result in long-term, benefited better paying employment than what a casino would offer and would not result in old ladies being separated from their pensions. A concert venue, retail to the scale of Jordan Creek Mall or Crowne Plaza, technology/manufacturing company incentives, etc. make more sense for the lifestyle of the majority of Linn County residents.
I’m voting yes if only to counter the constant negativity. Glad to see it downtown too, we need to keep up our downtown district.
Absolutely not, it is a slap in the face to have Steve Grey in charge of anything. How forgetful do they think Linn county residents are. I would be more in favor of it if P T Larson was in charge.
My mind was made up as soon as I saw where Riverside put up 1.5 million to keep a monoply on gambling,so I figured it must be a good deal for the town of riverside.If it’s worth 1.5 million there it has to be a good deal for CR and linn county.I don’t gamble but when you put over 300 people to work they will be spending there paychecks at stores in CR.and as far as the 3% payback,I wonder how much walmart puts back in the city,and traffic on blarsferry sucks around walmart,and no-one complains about it.I have yet to see where the no people have a good arguement aginst it.The only thing I dislike is they want to put it downtown.
I am voting yes! I think this should be a no brainer for Linn county. We need new attractions, it’s going to bring money to the area, it’s going to create jobs, new things will be built around it, it will attract visitors who will stay at our hotels and spend money in the area, it will help with taxes, flood protection, charities….. These are all GOOD things, vote Yes!