Several weeks ago, the City of Davenport's administration saw fit to issue a Floodplain Construction Permit to the Isle of Capri for its planned casino hotel (or "boatel") on downtown Davenport's riverfront. While disappointed, I am not remotely surprised by this complete abdication of stewardship by city officials.
More importantly, there are credible doubts about the reliability of the hydrology study by the Isle of Capri's engineering consultant (Stanley Engineering), which claims that building an 11-story hotel with a five-story attached parking garage, surrounded by a removable floodwall, will not impact surrounding properties or properties upstream during flooding.
Common sense alone dictates that a structure taking up nearly a full city block will cause displacement of water elsewhere during flooding. The question is: How much displacement?
These doubts were presented to city officials after local engineer Bill Ashton voluntarily did a hydrology analysis showing problems with Stanley's original study. Ashton stressed that properties upstream from the facility would be significantly impacted during flooding, as far upriver as the Village of East Davenport. Which hydrology prediction should we believe? The one from an engineer with no vested interest in the outcome other than community good, or the one from the engineer whose conclusions necessarily support its employer's goals? Opting for the latter is letting the fox watch the hen house.
Regardless, you would certainly think, for a situation of this magnitude, that city officials would err on the side of caution. Especially considering that just last December, Ashton Engineering was commissioned by the city to do a nearly identical hydrology study for Centennial Park after receiving preliminary plans for a build-out of the park from consultants Hargreaves & Associates. Ashton showed the same dangers to upstream properties during flooding because of various landscaping etc. that would block water flow down River Drive. Consequently, the city insisted on a re-design from Hargreaves that resolved this problem. So why is Ashton's data acceptable in this instance, but was rejected in the case of the Isle of Capri's project?
Implementing a hydrology simulation would best predict the real increase in flooding due to the casino-hotel facility. Why not take this proactive step before issuing a permit to build in the floodplain? The answer is the expense. It is estimated to cost anywhere from $100,000 to $200,000 for such a study - but that's a drop in the bucket when considering the $43-million overall cost of the project. And that dollar amount was figured in the very beginning stages of this project, without many of these issues even addressed, let alone resolved. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that actual costs will be much higher. It is imperative for the public to know what additional costs are being considered, and why. Any and all changes to the project should immediately be made a matter of public record.
It so happens that the Isle of Capri could very well be out-of-compliance with the development agreement already, and this bears looking into. Because we cannot count on city staff to monitor these important things, the citizens must take it upon themselves to do so and bring any discrepancies to the administration's attention. If the city still does nothing, then there are more strenuous remedies. The City of Davenport's slogan of "Working together to serve you" is as empty as Administrator Craig Malin's assurance, when he was hired, that the citizens of Davenport would be the customers.
Davenport's administration chose to ignore Ashton's hydrology conclusions and move forward, the risks be damned. It is important to note that Davenport Engineer Pat McGrath, who sanctioned Stanley's hydrology version for the site, retired almost immediately after signing off on the deal. He did, however, also request that the city get an indemnification clause from the Isle of Capri against future damage claims from potential increased water levels during flooding.
But city Corporation Counsel Mary Thee isn't concerned, claiming property owners will have a difficult time proving any future damage from increased flooding due to the hotel structure. This only highlights her disregard for the public and lack of fiduciary responsibility. Thee and company are banking on the average owner's inability to bring a suit against the city, but in the event claims do occur, who cares? It isn't their money that will be spent to resolve things-a typical bureaucratic response.
As a property owner in downtown Davenport just two blocks east of the proposed casino-hotel site, I can tell you it is an unnerving thing to know the impending danger is of no consequence to the current decision-makers. All properties upstream from this project are in serious jeopardy because the city administration is too obtuse to reconcile the problem proactively. It is unbelievable enough that city leaders, including many on the city council, would give our most prized natural asset away to the likes of a casino hotel, whose use is strictly for its own guests, not the public-at-large. But to do so forewarned of potential damage to many other properties and perhaps even life is unconscionable and requires a massive unified response from the citizens of Davenport that this is completely unacceptable.
Beyond the predictable upstream flooding problems, there are other serious concerns that are still unresolved, such as: life-safety issues with regard to vacating the hotel during flooding; how much sewer reconstruction will really cost and how it will impact other property owners; and how the public will have access along the 50-foot setback under the boat's gangplank during high water.
Then there's the deceptive renderings of the riverfront landscaping, pier, and amenities that hotel supporters and many media outlets present while stating this is what the $43-million project will pay for. The Isle of Capri has flat said the city is responsible-meaning taxpayers-for such expenditures, but the fluff continues to fly.
For all those who believe we, Todd and Kathleen McGreevy, have a hidden agenda with respect to our protesting a casino hotel on our riverfront, there is nothing hidden about it. We have been up-front and open about our interests from the beginning. In fact, we would be remiss if we didn't vigorously object. Would any of you respond differently if a proposed development jeopardized your property or investment, and that of your neighborhood? Furthermore, my guess is that the majority of those expressing support for the casino hotel locating on the riverfront are affiliated with the casino and benefit financially in some way, whether as an employee, an independent contractor, etc. But we will never know because these individuals almost always make their accusations and express their views anonymously. At least you know who we are, and why we have taken the position we have.
I have always maintained that I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, so let's have your dispelling arguments with supporting data. Credibly refute the information consistently presented in these pages with reliable data, and you'll have my attention. Since you have not done so this far, I won't be placing any bets.
