Marketplace
![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.semissourian.com/images/nameplate.gif)
|
|
Mostly Cloudy ~ River stage: 33.9 Rising Saturday, November 21, 2009 |
RSS
 Print
 Email link
 Respond to editor
 Read comments (38)
 Share link
Cape mayor asks for denial of casino ballot measureFriday, July 25, 2008Cape Girardeau Mayor Jay Knudtson joined the debate over a proposal to permanently ban new casino licenses in a letter asking Secretary of State Robin Carnahan to declare the measure unconstitutional. In the letter dated Wednesday, Knudtson used three arguments -- including one already rejected by a Cole County judge -- to urge Carnahan to deny a ballot slot for the casino-sponsored Schools First initiative. The initiative petition, which is being checked by election authorities to determine whether enough signatures were gathered, would appear on the November ballot. Knudtson's move to intervene with Carnahan drew praise from David Knight, owner of Ole Hickory Pits and one of two major investors in property along North Main Street where a casino could be built. Knight said he did not speak to Knudtson directly about the letter nor did he ask him to send it. Knight saw his hopes dashed last month when the Missouri Gaming Commission imposed a moratorium on new licenses while the initiative was pending. "The 'Schools First Elementary and Secondary Funding Initiative' has a specious title intended to mislead voters from its primary intent, which is to advance the interests of casinos," Knudtson wrote to Carnahan. "A more accurate and fair title would be the 'Casinos First Monopoly and $500 Loss Limit Repeal Initiative." The initiative campaign has been funded with $2.1 million, most of it coming from Ameristar and Pinnacle Entertainment, two companies that operate casinos in the Kansas City and St. Louis areas. In the letter, Knudtson argues the initiative should be rejected because: * It violates the Missouri Constitution's requirement that all initiative petitions deal with one subject that is clearly expressed in the title. The seven main elements of the bill are far too many for one initiative, Knudtson wrote. The measure would repeal the loss limits, ban reimposition of loss limits, eliminate the identification requirement to enter a casino, ban new casinos in excess of the number already operating, increase the tax on casinos, create a new fund for education programs and require annual audits of the new fund. Many Missourians may favor keeping the loss limits, favor increasing the tax but oppose a limit on new casinos, Knudtson wrote. "They will be forced to choose between the two conflicting separate and distinct subjects," he wrote. * It violates the requirement that the initiative list all the laws it repeals, even if they are re-enacted in altered form. The initiative's ban on new casinos would conflict with another law granting the gaming commission sole authority to determine where and how many casinos to allow in each locality. * The fiscal note stating the possible revenue effects of the initiative is inaccurate because it does not take into account the potential loss of revenue for cities and counties that were preparing to ask for new casinos. Those losses include 1,000 potential jobs, the city and state's share of $29 million in taxes and fees and the accompanying economic development. Knudtson could not be reached for comment Thursday. Carnahan has the power to block the measure from the ballot if she decides any of Knudtson's arguments have merit, said Ryan Hobart, spokesman for Carnahan. Local election authorities have until Wednesday to certify the signatures; Carnahan has until Aug. 3 to announce which petitions have been verified and which will be on the ballot. The office is already considering the issues, Hobart said. "We will look into the concerns in the letter while we are taking that into consideration." Cole County Circuit Judge Patricia Joyce has already rejected claims that the language that would appear on the ballot for the Schools First initiative is unfair and misleading. That lawsuit raised, but Joyce did not rule on, the question of whether it deals with more than one subject. Joyce decided that until the measure is certified for the ballot, the one subject rule is not a dispute the court can consider. In the eyes of Chuck Hatfield, an attorney who represents the Yes for Schools First Committee, Joyce's ruling closes the door on legal challenges. "That ship has sailed," Hatfield said. "That was the only suit that was filed." Knight, however, said he had been in contact with civic leaders in Sugar Creek, Mo., which was also seeking a casino, and the people who sued Carnahan over the initiative. He said his understanding of state law from those sources was that a new lawsuit could be filed within 10 days of Carnahan allowing the measure on the ballot. "This doesn't have anything to do with the measure as a petition but as a ballot measure," he said. "We are reviewing our options." Hatfield said the committee would fight if needed. "We are ready to defend it in court," he said. 335-6611, extension 126 Does this affect you? Have a comment? Log on to semissourian.com/today Comments  Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
|
More stories
Enter your email address to subscribe to our mailing lists:
|
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Furl
Reddit
Google
In my opinion, MO's "loss limit of $500 for each two hour gambling session” is a joke. It is NOT achieving a goal. IF a gambler is losing their money at that pace, there is no hope (or regulation) that will help them.
Thus, the two-issue debate is really a mute point. Let the voters decide. Personally, do NOT think a gambling boat in Cape would bring long term economic benefit to individuals or the community.
Studies show there will be an initial increase in revenue and employment only to later fall off to lower levels than before the boat. Studies also reflect the average casino commute is 30-40 miles, thus it will not be a great tourist draw (new dollars) for our community (those folks are already spending their money here).
Individual disposible income will merely be transferred from one avenue of entertainment spending (eating out, going to a movie, buying a new tv or car) to another (enjoying losing their money, for those who can control a potential addiction).
We must ask ourselves...what do WE want in our community? Growing diversity of businesses or a gambling boat AND eventual declining diversity of businesses?
Finally Knudston does something smart. The odds of him doing so on a repeat basis I wouldnt' bet on. Get it.."odds"..."bet"...hello is this message board on?
Why don't these so called leaders try to get some REAL jobs in this town? All I see are banks and doctors and no REAL jobs available. If you want to be an insurance agent or a nurse then the jobs are available. Or you can flip burgers or make taco's. Get some REAL paying jobs. We don't need casinos, we need real JOBS!
prudentdriver,
It is called Google. Do you need me to spell it for you? Search: gambling community economic impact or gambling expert economic impact...plenty of material to read.
fyi... Actually did cite my source(s), a few weeks back, when I first posted my thoughts on this topic. btw...I do not catalog every study or article I read.
Here's a few sources basically stating the same information I shared. Couldn't quickly find the original source I recall quoting in the previous speakout forum.
http://www.bettergov.org/pdfs/policy_gambling_impact_1996.pdf
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gamble/procon/kindt.html
http://www1.kybaptist.org/kbc/welcome.nsf/printpages/legislativeupdateoboroforum!OpenDocument&Click=2003
All we need to do to get a Riverboat Casino Hotel Downtown is to get Dr. Dobbins on board and promise him he can have a fountain by the entrance and let him name it. He would then pull all the right strings and it should all fall into place. What Dr. D. wants, Dr. D. gets. At least you tried Jay.
Question..."Prudent Oh, and please, don't get all WAPCE on me..." Does that equate to "Women Are Pure Concentrated Evil"? LMAO
Prudentdriver,
I was mistaken...it was from a June 21 article...here is my source.
[William Thompson, an expert on gambling, thinks that, except for the boat owners, riverboat gambling has turned out to be a draw. Thompson, professor of public administration at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas and author of four books on gambling.
Proponents offer increased jobs, tourist revenue and increase taxes for city/community and state. Those who look at both sides can see demand (spent disposible income) is merely displaced from one avenue of spending (or community) to another. Many feel riverboat funds do not seep into the local economy. Not to mention the all social-economic groups/families that are devastated financially by gambling addiction.
One example: "Casinos hurt the local economy. While casinos are incredibly profitable to their owners (the Washington Post reported that the Empress riverboat in Joliet, IL paid $87 million in dividends in its first 18 months), the economic benefits are not shared by their communities. A 1996 study, "Monetary Impacts of Riverboat Casino Gambling in Illinois" by William Thompson of the University of NV, on results in Illinois, found that 61% of the gamblers lived within 35 miles of the casinos, resulting in local net economic losses of $239 million per year."]
I can see it now. Instead of church on sunday morning it'll be bloody marys and craps, I'll just pray for sevens and elevens and pay tips instead of the preacher. Instead of putting my money in the local bank I'll loose it to foriegn investors, we won't need so many banks that way, instead of eating out I'll have the buffet at the casino, and a live show instead of a movie. The lines and traffic shouldn't be so bad around town anymore.
I sure am proud that all these churches, bank's, businesses, bleeding-heart do-gooders are so worried about my gambling habits and my soul, and not my money.
not everything you read on the internet can be considered actual facts.
A casino in downtown Cape would benefit 'downtown' Cape and the Casino owner. But the balance of Cape would not benefit. And the Casino would not benefit the school. In fact it may hurt the school as parents spend their time at the Casino instead of helping their child with school work. It's curious to me that this conversation has any legs at all in this 'so called' horrible economic times. Casinos depend on people losing their money. Do that many people in Cape have ample money to lose? If so, then the economy of Cape is doing pretty darned good.
I agree with you 100% that unions allowed you to make a decent living and retire with a decent income. Although I never worked for a union, my company told us they paid well to keep us from starting a union, so I benefited from your experience. Most people nowadays blame unions for everything, not realizing we were working for $.50 an hour 50 and 60 years ago.
CeilingCatKnowsBest,
Agreed. However, believe the sources I cited, such as University of Nevada (Thompson, professor of public administration and expert on gambling), Chicago Metro Ethics Coalition, The National Impact of Casino Gambling Proliferation: Hearing Before the House Committee on Small Business and Dr. John Kindt, professor of commerce and legal policy at the University of Illinois would seem to be fairly credible sources.
Prudent,
Like you told me once, you called me out...what did you expect? (After comparing you to "joe kool" guess I deserve the MJB comment. hehe)
Prudent,
"When you claim facts, it is pertinent to always use a citation" Sorry, must have missed that "forum rule". And you know, I usually cite my sources more often than most.
Casino in Cape...?
Frankly I doubt it.Even if it were to be built
why would anyone who does not gamble really care.
Are you prohibitionist?Why worry about what others
enjoy even if you don't.Personally I prefer to keep
my hard earned dollars rather than gamble with them.
I do however feel that gambling should be legal for those who enjoy it.Would it be good for Cape..maybe!
Would it bring in new jobs that pay good..probably!
Will crime increase becuase of it,I doubt it!
Will it harm those of you who think its a bad idea..NO!
Worrying about things before they even occur is a waste
of your imagination.The jury is still out on any Cape Casino and I would not expect to see any decision in the long term.JMO
Guess I've just seen to many law shows. Both sides always seem to find the experts that will say whatever will back up their case. I've got mixed feelings on the casino. I don't think we would ever for certain know the effects of one, economics can be blamed on many different things. Atleast the mayor wrote a somewhat intelligent letter. I would agree that the initiative is terribly misleading and that all three issues should be treated at three different initiatives. (sorta feels wrong to be agreeing with the mayor, i may need to go take a bath or something)
Hey prudent, couldn't agree with you more. I used to read speak out becuase it was comical, now its nothing more than pointless blather filled with LMAO and hehe. Rediculous. Got on the other day and Mel is running through the list of speak out regulars with little chit chat items. What a waste of time for that moderator.
Anyways, a casino would be a great thing for this town. To whoever said it won't benefit the schools, call Hayti or Caruthersville superintendent and see if there schools benefit from the casino in Caruthersville. Those two schools get tons of money from the casino, and it would be a great benefit to this town.
Besides what would be better than pulling an all nighter at the craps table followed by breakfast at Sands?
Amen to that Greywolf.
Prudent,joeraider...
Try getting back in bed,fall asleep and then wake
up on the right side!Melange's post our always
informative and this media is not just for you
two's enjoyment!It is a simple forum and you two are
not the forum police!If you do not enjoy reading comments and opinions of others don't reply!
And try and be nice for a change its Happy Friday.
It's all about money. These two men have been holding on to the property for years to sell it to the casino.
This property was also for sale recently before they tried again with the casino license.
They could care less about doing it for the town.
If they lose, the for sale signs will be up again.
Please pardon me from taking time away from such a beautifully vituperative thread thus far, but I'm hoping someone can fill in my memory.
When I lived in the area in the early '90s, Boyd Gaming and Lady Luck Casinos were downright comical in their attempts to outdo each other in kowtowing to the Cape City Council over who would get the "right" to build a casino.
As I recall, Boyd won out. Lady Luck started suiting the Scott City folks...yadda yadda yadda...there's still no casino.
Wha' happened? Who put the kibosh on things?
I beg your pardon GREYWOLF this is not a forum and never has been this is MeLange's Blog.
Johng,
Frankly its none of our buisness who David Knight
and the other major land owner sells their property to.
Nor should it matter to you what their motives for selling their land are.If they have chosen to continue to pay taxes on their ground and hold off for a Casino or any other organization I for one have NO problem with it and neither should ANYONE else.Perhaps you suffer from a bit of Class envy,I hope not for your sake.
Chick,
several issues have risen over the years as to why no boat in Cape.I am sure you can find all the info you need from the net.The State gamming commission has not issued any new license in many years.There are too many reasons to mention.The Corps of Egineers also had serious issues with where it would dock.However,the voters in Cape DID approve a casino in a ballot vote so certainly there has remained the possibilty of a boat here in Cape.My fellings are it won't happen anytime soon.I have been wrong many times however!
Tenasious,
your response was a bit tenasious in my opinion.
That being said,I respect your opinion concerning
Melange but will also respectfully disagree with
it.feel free to chime in anytime with any topic.
Melange has no problem doing so.
Why are so many against this idea. It would bring alot of revenue to the community. Just think how many people would drive to Cape then ging to St. Louis or Caruthersville. Im all for it.
I am literally laughing so hard I'm crying at the commenter who thinks that casinos will hurt schools because people will go to casinos rather than work on homework with their kids.
Maybe we should shut down bars, malls, movie theaters, and parks as well since these activities could interfere with homework time?
And why does Missouri still embrace such an antiquated notion of 'riverboat' gambling? This was the ploy to get it approved many years ago as most envisioned a real riverboat cruising the river. Now, the state just might as well do as other states, such as Louisiana.
Allow smaller free standing dedicated casinos that offer only the gambling and a bar. No hotels, food or entertainment. The cities would collect revenue without being in competition with local business.
I agree with Greywolf, if Melange or whoever wants to post so be it. I may not agree with a person's point of view but everyone is entitled to voice their opinion. In this case Melange was asked to provide sources and she did.
Green_Lantern
Welcome, never seen you post before. I to thought it was funny. Hey maybe mommy or daddy can take the kids to the boat with them and help them with their math. I can see it now. Now little kids keep pulling this handle and when you get 3 7's in a row we will take you out for some ice cream afterwards for being so "good".
They can even help with their geography by teaching them where to put the chips on the map oh I mean crap tables.
The Neo-cons, corrupt politicians, and judges win again !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And, if the proposal to ban new casino licenses should not be shot down through the legal maneuvering and other related mumbo-jumbo technicalities, the good citizens of Cape should ask a simple question - Aren't riverboat casinos a type of 'water-park' also? Think of the children! :-)~
Ar, Ar, Ar - I crack myself up.
Mayor J--spin this how you want; you are in reality positioning this city for a boat if the opportunity presents itself. You are in for a wrestling match that will make ice hockey seem like tiddleywinks. It will leave an indelible stain on your leadership.
The last time this was tried, the gambolers finally wrung out a pricey electoral victory.
No boat.
They confronted forces with unintelligible strengths. Try that again at the risk of every kind of resource you thus far have valued.
This city is not yours and will not be subjugated.
I would like to know if there is absolutely anything that could come into this town that everyone would not be fighting and fussing about? It seems to me that if it is not a church, bank or another fast food place no one wants it here. I for one am not personally into gambling, but I do have to say that on the very few occasions that I have been in a casino there were more people of color there than anyone and there were longer lines at the ATM machines than there was at the slots and gaming tables. How about getting involved in the art community here in this town. How about a nice water park, how about a skateboarding arena, how about a nice skating rink, how about minature golf, how about a huge arena out near the interstate that could bring in some really big concerts instead of having to go to St.Louis, Nashville or Memphis. How about something for the kids around here to do other than hanging out at the mall. And if the poor kids are going to suffer so from a casino maybe the casino needs to incorporate a Day Care and Kindergarden through 12th. grade classes into the plan. I for one do not think that any parent that is responsible is going to be taking anything away from their kids and if they are not a responsible parent then the kids are out on the streets anyway and the parents are out doing what ever they would be doing anyway whether it be here locally or else where. If any type of business does come to this town it does not get local support so they end up leaving anyway. I for one do not care to see a casino come into the area, but I would love to see something done to make the downtown area more inviting and a fun, safe place for all ages. I would love to hear some thoughts on what could be done in the downtown area that would be of interest to all.
tenacious,
Enjoyed reading your thoughts on the issue. I don't have strong feelings against a casino coming to Cape. There will be positive factors, mainly the owners of the boat and paycheck loan businesses will make great profits, plus local and state govt will take in more taxes that will probably be used to improve our city. And we will have a shiny new boat and hotel with nice landscaping off the beaten trail of downtown. (Yes, a bit of sarcasm...if you think downtown is dead now...just wait and see what happens when a gambling boat arrives.)
BUT, my concern lies in the cost factor...who is really paying for the increase in local revenue and what is the real cost? I cited (thanks to Prudentdriver) several reputable organizations and an emphiral study that contradict ALL the sales pitches about the real benefit to a community. One IL study stated to gain $5000 of local revenue ($15000 of state revenue) LOCAL gambling patrons LOSE $100,000...so who is REALLY paying for the new tax revenue/improvements? Quote [It is a “back door” tax increase, which has
fallen in an extremely regressive manner on minorities and the poor...surveys have shown disproportionate play by the poor and minorities]. Like you, don't really want to see a gambling boat come to town. (Yet, we appear to be in the minority, as when I peeked in on KFVS's poll over 70% favored a gambling boat in Cape.)
I haven't mentioned the social benefits. Once a gambling boat is established...our community will start experiencing more homes/cars/farms/businesses lost, more mental health issues/suicides/homelessness, more broken families/divorces, a surge in crime/bank robberies/theft & spouse/child abuse. SERIOUSLY doubt the new owners and supporting Mayor (geez) will offer the public this side of the discussion. (Honorable Mayor, Hope you "DREAM" about the social benefits I just mentioned. Are these the benefits you really want to bring to our community? Sounds more like a "nightmare" to me!). I felt the experience of existing gambling communities should be strongly considered/studied before introducing this package of social benefits to our community.
"I would love to see something done to make the downtown area more inviting and a fun, safe place for all ages" I completely agree with you, however...it should be private industry not city government financing those endeavors. (Like the new water park that IS coming, financed by the ten year increase in sales tax, which begins 8/1/08).
One other thought...has anyone taken a drive by some downtown/river area gambling boat communities? When I marketed products in several states...I did...**** Cities, Caurthersville, St. Louis, Council Bluffs, Dubuque, Tama, Sioux City and many others...are NOT very pretty sights.
Some nicer exceptions were Altoona, IA and Omaha, NB... both added casinos after they were established with live and simulcast horse track racing.
Good lord... **** = Q- u- a- d Cities as in Davenport, Bettendorf, Moline and Rock Island.
Sigh...I'm going to ask once again. Why do we think a gambling facility as only a 'boat' casino? Other states have moved on and now allow free standing casinoes nowhere near a dang river.
I would love to have a Casino in the area. Someone said that places that have riverboats by the river are not pretty sites, well no offense, but I wouldn't exactly call Cape pretty especially over by the old bridge. Personally I think the casino would generate money that could fix up downtown. There are alot of buildings that need a makeover. If Missouri doesn't want to put a Casino in, maybe the IL side could and East Cape Girardeau could be just like East St. Louis with Strip Clubs and Casino. And for all the people that doesn't like the casino idea, stay out of them. It kind of goes back to the smoking issue, if someone doesn't smoke don't go to a place that has smoking, well same here. If a person doesn't like gambling don't go to a casino and stop whinning about it. It would do Cape good to have a casino. It would draw more people down town and I'm sure the downtown merchants want that.