LAWSUIT CONTESTS FIXED CASINOS

When the first gambling riverboat casino opened in Tunica County, Miss., it consisted of a boat in a moat alongside the Mississippi River.

That operation set the stage for numerous Mississippi casinos, all constructed on barges and surrounded by river water diverted to form artificial moats for casino gambling.

Splash Casino, the first riverboat casino in Tunica County in 1992. is long gone, but nine boats in moats have emerged in the northern Mississippi county.

The boat-in-a-moat concept didn't hit Missouri until late 1995, when Harrah's, which has a casino in Tunica County, and Players International applied to the Missouri Gaming Commission for Riverport Gaming Center in the floodplain of the Missouri River at Maryland Heights. The commission licensed the operation and it opened in March.

The Riverport complex is the center of a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of a gambling facility being placed in an artificial moat, or lagoon, away from the river. The suit, titled "Akin vs. the Gaming Commission," will be heard by the Missouri Supreme Court Oct. 22.

"This facility is actually a mega casino complex not upon a river," said Mark Andrews, chairman of Casino Watch, which is questioning the legality of the land-based operation. "This is not what Missourians intended when they voted to restrict gambling to cruising riverboats on the Missouri and Mississippi rivers in Missouri."

The lawsuit was filed last year in Cole County Circuit Court, by Missouri Rep. Todd Akin of St. Louis, a member of Casino Watch, an anti-casino group. The suit asked the court at that time to rule that "an artificial space filled with water from a river is not a river," thus barring operation of Harrah's and Players' complex.

The Gaming Commission, Missouri Riverboat Gaming Association and Riverport Center officials declined to comment on the suit.

"We'll wait until the Supreme Court issues a ruling," said a spokesman for Riverboat Gaming Association. "Normally, we would comment on a suit like this, but we have already won the decision in Cole County. Now we'll wait and see what happens Oct. 22."

"As the plaintiff, I am free to speak my mind," Akin told the Southeast Missourian Tuesday.

"Riverfront is clearly not on the river, which the people approved," said Akin. "And I feel that basically the casino industry has treaded Missourians to a dose of broken promises. It all started with a picture of picturesque cruising on the river, providing family entertainment on the river," he said. "But we don't have that kind of riverboat casino."

None of Missouri's gambling boats cruises the waters. Three of the gambling boats in Kansas City and two in the St. Louis area have no engines and are permanently docked. Others with engines can move but aren't cruising.

"And now gambling interests are lobbying to get rid of the two-hour, $500 loss limit," said Akin. "What we have is a history of broken promises."

The lawsuit didn't challenge other boat-in-a-moat operations open or under construction in the state. But if the lawsuit is successful other Missouri riverboats could be affected.

Riverboats, said Andrews, were a ruse by the gambling industry to respond to the negative opinions about gambling. "Gambling would be easier to regulate within the confines of a cruising riverboat," he said.

In the beginning, it was promised that restricting cruises to two hours and enforcing a $500 loss limit per cruise would avoid the introduction of a high-pressure Las Vegas-style-casino industry, said Andrews.

But a major exception was made before riverboat gambling laws ever cleared the legislation, with the specifically written amendment to allow the permanently docked Admiral on the St. Louis riverfront to be eligible for a gaming license although it has no motors and can't cruise.

Now, permanent docking privileges have been accorded to all operations in the state.