10
Jan
2006
It never ceases to amaze and inspire me that Davenport, for all its troubles, has real civic heroes living among us. This time it is Bill Ashton of Ashton Engineering with his well-established experience in riverfront development to caution the City of Davenport against the Isle of Capri's proposed 11-story casino hotel on downtown Davenport's riverfront, between Brady and Perry Streets, south of River Drive.
Entirely at his own expense, Asthton prepared an 82-page analysis illustrating the real threat to Davenport property owners upstream of the site should this casino hotel be built. (See article starting on page 7.) The Isle of Capri has submitted its project application to the various regulators indicating a 10-foot removable floodwall on both the Brady and Perry street sides of the property to mitigate flood damage to its own property, while significantly increasing the overall flood stage for surrounding properties with the potential to cause serious destruction. (The proprietors of the River Cities' Reader own property near the proposed casino site.)
Unfortunately, FEMA only regulates what is built in a floodway, which in Davenport's case is basically the channel's edge. The actual floodplain is primarily under the control of the City of Davenport for several reasons: (1) Davenport is a charter city and therefore regulates itself with regard to FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program; and (2) Davenport's municipal code governs development in a floodplain as it relates to specific sites within its borders. As a result, the buck stops with the city staff and council.
So far, relative to the Isle of Capri's casino hotel, the city has demonstrated it cannot be trusted to do what is right for the public. The previous council approved the project without doing any of the appropriate due diligence demanded of a project of this scope. The majority of the public is resolutely against the site for the casino hotel with good reason. It seems the public's collective common sense is a far better governor than 10 previous aldermen and one incompetent mayor.
(Sidebar: Former Mayor Charlie Brooke is now Sixth Ward alderman thanks to five lazy voters. So the first civic New Year's resolution is that if it comes from Alderman Brooke, it needs verification. Brooke's credibility is shot, and his political capital practically nonexistent. Don't believe a word he says until it is verified with at least two parties.)
The public is tired of Davenport's leadership doing the wrong thing. In the case of the casino hotel, if the city is forewarned of potential damage because its construction will cause the diversion of water onto surrounding properties, this constitutes a legal liability for the city and the Isle of Capri that could bankrupt both.
Neither the city nor the Isle of Capri can knowingly cause damage to other properties without significant financial and possible confinement consequences. Iowa has laws prohibiting landowners from diverting surface water onto a neighbor's property. Also, common law exists that provides no person may divert or impound the natural flow of surface waters in a manner that damages the property of another by the overflow.
It is important to note that it will be the taxpayers of Davenport that will foot the city's portion of any such lawsuits.
Bill Ashton has done everything in his professional power to alert all parties to these dangers, and to get in front of the issue before things get beyond repair. He submitted his hydraulic analysis based on the Isle of Capri's removable floodwalls, but his findings were met with rejection by city staff. And because the Iowa Department of Natural Resources has little authority over what is built in the floodplain, it has signed off on its permits. It is up to the city now.
Interestingly, in November Ashton was commissioned to review the site plan from Hargreaves & Associates for Centennial Park. He rejected it for the same reasons he faults the Isle of Capri's site plan. Hargreaves had numerous land forms that would function like a dam, blocking secondary water flow and increasing flood stages upstream, affecting properties such as the new Figge Art Museum. The city hired Ashton to establish the hydraulic parameters necessary for Centennial Park that would avoid such problems. Yet in the case of the Isle of Capri, the city is ignoring Ashton's same concerns with floodwalls that would also function like a dam, negatively impacting properties as far upstream as Oneida Landing and the Boat House.
This inconsistency proves that Davenport cannot act as unbiased arbiter of either FEMA regulations or its own municipal code as it pertains to development in our floodway or floodplain. Of great importance is the fact that Davenport will participate financially in the new casino hotel, so how can it possibly be trusted to remain neutral and protect the public interest when revenues are involved? What remains a mystery, however, is why the city is not the applicant for the necessary permits since it owns the land on which the casino hotel would be built. This time the applicant is the Isle of Capri, even though it doesn't own the land.
There are also some inconsistencies in the municipal code relative to floodway and floodplain development that could be argued. All of this advances the notion that this project needs far more scrutiny, analysis, professional study, and someone to explain this to certain councilmen who have ignored the red flags. The bell is most definitely about to ring.
Finally, DavenportOne should tread carefully in making unsubstantiated claims that if the Isle of Capri cannot build its casino hotel at this particular riverfront location, it will leave Davenport altogether. It just doesn't compute when you consider that Davenport's and Bettendorf's casinos are in the Isle of Capri's five most profitable properties. Because the Goldsteins also operate a casino under Bettendorf's gaming license, there is an automatic economy of scale unique to these two operations, no doubt measurably contributing to the profitability they enjoy here. Ask their peers and the response is the same: The Goldsteins aren't going anywhere!
The real truth is that not only does DavenportOne stand to gain an additional annual payola of $180,000 from Isle of Capri's new hotel project via SSMID tax dollars (another compelling story for another day), it also receives, on an annual basis, one of the highest portions of the Riverboat Development Authority grants. DavenportOne is not inclined to forgo this lucrative relationship with the RDA.
What DavenportOne leaves out of the discussion is that the gaming license stays with Davenport, and is a valuable commodity for other casino operators, who would predictably jump at the opportunity, especially since the Davenport boat represents one of the three most profitable properties in the Goldsteins' casino fleet.
DavenportOne simply doesn't want to lose its cozy position already established with the Goldsteins' operation or the current RDA and risk future dollars. Do not ever forget that DavenportOne is basically a lobbying group, raising money for itself first and foremost. It co-ops community programming to leverage public dollars for its coffers, but what it does with the money is barely reflective of the programming it claims to offer. The New Ventures program is a perfect example. It is nothing more than a glorified real estate deal. But I digress.
DavenportOne has a mission to control politics and city government in Davenport. They already possess an inordinate amount of influence with the city staff, and with certain members of the city council. Just how much influence they will have with the new council collectively remains to be seen.
One indicator might be this: On the outside chance that there is some merit to the claim the Goldsteins will leave Davenport if the hotel project at this location does not come to fruition, then where is the harm in testing those waters with other casinos? In other words, reach out and see what the level of interest would be for other casino operators to replace the Goldsteins. Not only could Davenport potentially regain a position of leverage, it might finally realize that the deal it made with the Isle of Capri is woefully inadequate and that we could do far better across the bow. But this effort would take leadership, and so far, we haven't even a dinghy's worth.
(Sidebar: in the event that such an effort was actually made, keep Aldermen Barnhill, Howard, and Brooke at home. There is no sense in playing our weakest hand.)
Entirely at his own expense, Asthton prepared an 82-page analysis illustrating the real threat to Davenport property owners upstream of the site should this casino hotel be built. (See article starting on page 7.) The Isle of Capri has submitted its project application to the various regulators indicating a 10-foot removable floodwall on both the Brady and Perry street sides of the property to mitigate flood damage to its own property, while significantly increasing the overall flood stage for surrounding properties with the potential to cause serious destruction. (The proprietors of the River Cities' Reader own property near the proposed casino site.)
Unfortunately, FEMA only regulates what is built in a floodway, which in Davenport's case is basically the channel's edge. The actual floodplain is primarily under the control of the City of Davenport for several reasons: (1) Davenport is a charter city and therefore regulates itself with regard to FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program; and (2) Davenport's municipal code governs development in a floodplain as it relates to specific sites within its borders. As a result, the buck stops with the city staff and council.
So far, relative to the Isle of Capri's casino hotel, the city has demonstrated it cannot be trusted to do what is right for the public. The previous council approved the project without doing any of the appropriate due diligence demanded of a project of this scope. The majority of the public is resolutely against the site for the casino hotel with good reason. It seems the public's collective common sense is a far better governor than 10 previous aldermen and one incompetent mayor.
(Sidebar: Former Mayor Charlie Brooke is now Sixth Ward alderman thanks to five lazy voters. So the first civic New Year's resolution is that if it comes from Alderman Brooke, it needs verification. Brooke's credibility is shot, and his political capital practically nonexistent. Don't believe a word he says until it is verified with at least two parties.)
The public is tired of Davenport's leadership doing the wrong thing. In the case of the casino hotel, if the city is forewarned of potential damage because its construction will cause the diversion of water onto surrounding properties, this constitutes a legal liability for the city and the Isle of Capri that could bankrupt both.
Neither the city nor the Isle of Capri can knowingly cause damage to other properties without significant financial and possible confinement consequences. Iowa has laws prohibiting landowners from diverting surface water onto a neighbor's property. Also, common law exists that provides no person may divert or impound the natural flow of surface waters in a manner that damages the property of another by the overflow.
It is important to note that it will be the taxpayers of Davenport that will foot the city's portion of any such lawsuits.
Bill Ashton has done everything in his professional power to alert all parties to these dangers, and to get in front of the issue before things get beyond repair. He submitted his hydraulic analysis based on the Isle of Capri's removable floodwalls, but his findings were met with rejection by city staff. And because the Iowa Department of Natural Resources has little authority over what is built in the floodplain, it has signed off on its permits. It is up to the city now.
Interestingly, in November Ashton was commissioned to review the site plan from Hargreaves & Associates for Centennial Park. He rejected it for the same reasons he faults the Isle of Capri's site plan. Hargreaves had numerous land forms that would function like a dam, blocking secondary water flow and increasing flood stages upstream, affecting properties such as the new Figge Art Museum. The city hired Ashton to establish the hydraulic parameters necessary for Centennial Park that would avoid such problems. Yet in the case of the Isle of Capri, the city is ignoring Ashton's same concerns with floodwalls that would also function like a dam, negatively impacting properties as far upstream as Oneida Landing and the Boat House.
This inconsistency proves that Davenport cannot act as unbiased arbiter of either FEMA regulations or its own municipal code as it pertains to development in our floodway or floodplain. Of great importance is the fact that Davenport will participate financially in the new casino hotel, so how can it possibly be trusted to remain neutral and protect the public interest when revenues are involved? What remains a mystery, however, is why the city is not the applicant for the necessary permits since it owns the land on which the casino hotel would be built. This time the applicant is the Isle of Capri, even though it doesn't own the land.
There are also some inconsistencies in the municipal code relative to floodway and floodplain development that could be argued. All of this advances the notion that this project needs far more scrutiny, analysis, professional study, and someone to explain this to certain councilmen who have ignored the red flags. The bell is most definitely about to ring.
Finally, DavenportOne should tread carefully in making unsubstantiated claims that if the Isle of Capri cannot build its casino hotel at this particular riverfront location, it will leave Davenport altogether. It just doesn't compute when you consider that Davenport's and Bettendorf's casinos are in the Isle of Capri's five most profitable properties. Because the Goldsteins also operate a casino under Bettendorf's gaming license, there is an automatic economy of scale unique to these two operations, no doubt measurably contributing to the profitability they enjoy here. Ask their peers and the response is the same: The Goldsteins aren't going anywhere!
The real truth is that not only does DavenportOne stand to gain an additional annual payola of $180,000 from Isle of Capri's new hotel project via SSMID tax dollars (another compelling story for another day), it also receives, on an annual basis, one of the highest portions of the Riverboat Development Authority grants. DavenportOne is not inclined to forgo this lucrative relationship with the RDA.
What DavenportOne leaves out of the discussion is that the gaming license stays with Davenport, and is a valuable commodity for other casino operators, who would predictably jump at the opportunity, especially since the Davenport boat represents one of the three most profitable properties in the Goldsteins' casino fleet.
DavenportOne simply doesn't want to lose its cozy position already established with the Goldsteins' operation or the current RDA and risk future dollars. Do not ever forget that DavenportOne is basically a lobbying group, raising money for itself first and foremost. It co-ops community programming to leverage public dollars for its coffers, but what it does with the money is barely reflective of the programming it claims to offer. The New Ventures program is a perfect example. It is nothing more than a glorified real estate deal. But I digress.
DavenportOne has a mission to control politics and city government in Davenport. They already possess an inordinate amount of influence with the city staff, and with certain members of the city council. Just how much influence they will have with the new council collectively remains to be seen.
One indicator might be this: On the outside chance that there is some merit to the claim the Goldsteins will leave Davenport if the hotel project at this location does not come to fruition, then where is the harm in testing those waters with other casinos? In other words, reach out and see what the level of interest would be for other casino operators to replace the Goldsteins. Not only could Davenport potentially regain a position of leverage, it might finally realize that the deal it made with the Isle of Capri is woefully inadequate and that we could do far better across the bow. But this effort would take leadership, and so far, we haven't even a dinghy's worth.
(Sidebar: in the event that such an effort was actually made, keep Aldermen Barnhill, Howard, and Brooke at home. There is no sense in playing our weakest hand.)
