ON RIVERBOAT GAMBLING IN CAPE GIRARDEAU

The job of an editorial is to attach reason to facts in a way that promotes action. The duty we consistently feel with this space is to spur Cape Girardeau and the region to better things. Is the riverboat gambling issue before Cape Girardeau voters Tuesday a better thing? Weighing the pros and cons of this issue, we believe it is ... for the jobs it will produce, for the entertainment it will provide and for the economic activity it will create. We endorse the passage of the Cape Girardeau riverboat gambling question.

Stating the case for this endorsement is largely a reprise of our position in June, when the ballot measure was turned down by Cape Girardeau voters. The main issues then and now are jobs, tourism and entertainment. A company wants the opportunity to set up shop in this city, invest more than $37 million along the riverfront and put 800 people to work. Were it a shoe factory or a hardware manufacturer, the city would roll out a red carpet immediately and enthusiastically. It is, however, gambling, an enterprise Missouri voters declared legal last November; local citizens must also lend a positive voice.

What kind of economic impact will 800 jobs make? Consider that in the 35-year-old industrial complex on Nash Road west of Interstate 55, there are 723 people employed (at a lower average pay rate than projected for the riverboat employees). Consider that jobs in the gambling operation must be, by law, of a pay rate 25 percent above minimum wage. In addition, hundreds of spinoff jobs will be created in businesses that support any riverboat venture (food and beverage vendors, fuel companies, trash haulers, and so on). Jobs, especially such good-paying ones, are not easy to come by.

Stacked on that is the impact the riverboat will have on public treasuries. According to state law, a share of gambling revenue goes to the local governing entity ($900,000 a year is projected), as does a portion of the boarding fees ($1 for each boarding, with perhaps a million annual boardings). That says nothing of the increase property tax that will be paid on the land-based facilities and the revenues that will be contributed to the Special Downtown Business District.

True, the city will incur infrastructure and personnel expenses in relation to the volume of people generated by this endeavor. Streets will bear a heavier traffic load, and more people will require more law enforcement. This is the inevitability of such a project. Were it not the intent of Cape Girardeau to prosper through the attraction of tourists, the city should shut down the Convention and Visitors Bureau and erect gates at the corporate boundaries.

It is incumbent upon this discussion that local control be discussed. If the measure passes Tuesday, a boat won't be moored downtown Wednesday. The city council will negotiate with companies in the gambling business (not just the one that has openly expressed an interest in Cape Girardeau), draft certain conditions of operation and forward a recommendation to the Missouri Gaming Commission, which will then decide on licensing after additional checks. We ask a question we asked in June: Instead of viewing a positive vote on riverboat gambling as a submission to gambling companies, why can't Cape Girardeau officials use the authority at their disposal to become a model for all riverboat gambling operations in the nation? The gambling interests want to do well and so does the city. Both can happen.

A gambling issue is also on the ballot in neighboring Scott County, with a riverboat company wanting to locate at the Southeast Missouri Regional Port Authority facility near Scott City. While we take no position on that issue in this space, we will restate our previous position that the port authority, jointly created, managed and maintained by the governments of Cape Girardeau and Scott counties, is not the proper venue for a riverboat casino. Taxpayers who helped bring the port authority to fruition were led to believe that the river facility would be an industrial development, not a tourist stop. Locales other than the port are better suited for such an undertaking.

This is an emotional issue. As was the case when the issue was put to voters here in June, dozens of people wrote and called this newspaper to express opinions in favor and opposition to the casino question. For the most part, the debate has been thought-provoking. While we disparage no one for taking a principled stand against gambling, we don't accept the contentions of those who believe Cape Girardeau -- a fine city today -- is on the threshold of moral collapse with an affirmative vote Tuesday. It can even be argued that putting more people to work will produce better citizens, not corrupt ones.

For the economic opportunity it will bring, we support a "yes" vote on Tuesday's riverboat gambling question in Cape Girardeau.