07
Sep
2004
Davenport City Administrator Craig Malin casts the debate over a new riverfront casino/hotel as an either/or proposition. Either you accept the new hotel, or you're stuck with the status quo.
"Some folks in the community have the [mistaken] feeling that there's this third or fourth or fifth option," echoed DavenportOne President and CEO Dan Huber.
Virtually any discussion about a hotel is based on the assumption that there are only two options before the city. And that's at the root of public displeasure about the possibility of a riverfront hotel connected to the Rhythm City casino a block east of the boat's current location.
The problem with the assumption is that it's wrong. Or, at the very least, that there's been no attempt so far to prove to the public that the assumption is correct.
To date, the Isle of Capri (owner of the Rhythm City casino) has not put forward a formal proposal for a hotel. Mary Ellen Chamberlin, president of the Riverboat Development Authority, said a plan will probably not be forthcoming before October. This could not be confirmed because the casino's general manager, Nancy Donovan, did not return numerous phone calls over the past month.
But conceptual plans were presented to Davenport aldermen in individual or small-group meetings last month. Preliminary discussions have included moving the casino a block east and building an L-shaped, 11-story hotel on city-owned land between Brady and Perry Streets. Malin said the city would be asked to make roughly $5 million in infrastructure improvements (to be re-paid through revenue from increased property values at the casino-development site) and build two parking decks (that the Isle of Capri would pay for through long-term leases).
The concept raises many important questions: How well would a casino hotel fit with the River Vision plan? Does the public favor commercial development on the Davenport downtown riverfront, and if so, is this the best type of commercial development? How will a casino hotel impact the RiverCenter, the Radisson, and the Blackhawk Hotel? What (if any) is the appropriate level of city participation in this $50-million project?
Malin, Huber, and Chamberlin are happy to respond to all those questions. But they can't convincingly answer the bigger one: Why not someplace else? Until that question is answered to the satisfaction of most skeptics, the possibility of a casino hotel will only breed rancor.
"On a conceptual level, we've looked at every square inch of Davenport," Malin told me a few weeks ago. The city has explored putting a hotel on top of the Rhythm Courtyard and in Centennial Park, among other places, he said.
"The Isle doesn't believe there's sufficient return on investment," Malin said of alternative sites. "If they could make more money somewhere else, they'd be asking for it."
Fine. But where are the studies that thoroughly explore the pros and cons of each alternative considered by the city and the Isle of Capri? Where are the reports that show, as Chamberlin claims, that riverfront sites to the west of the current Rhythm City location won't work because of the soil quality? And the studies that show that building a complex on a man-made lake or moat would cost $100 million?
And if Jumer's Casino Rock Island is willing to spend $90 million for a casino/hotel complex floating on a man-made lake at an interstate-highway location, why isn't the Isle of Capri, a much larger company?
The critical element of winning public support is to convince doubters that every angle of every other alternative has been meticulously considered. That means producing credible documents showing why "infeasible" riverfront sites are infeasible and why "too costly" sites are too costly.
But Isle of Capri has been content to keep the public out of the process so far. The possibility of a hotel was inserted late in the River Vision planning process, and it wasn't the result of public input. Meanwhile, concept drawings have been shown to the Davenport City Council but not to citizens.
And Malin suggested several weeks ago that the public won't need more than a few weeks to digest the plan and its implications and make a decision on whether it supports the project. "I think you can show people two pictures and ask, 'Which one is better?'" he said. "People can come to an informed opinion" within two weeks.
That, of course, is silly. The River Vision process took many months with loads of public input. It arrived at a consensus by involving the public at every step. It started with a blank slate and an open question: What do we want for the riverfronts of Davenport and Rock Island? It encouraged participants to think big.
The people who support a riverfront casino hotel are thinking small, and it puts the city in a weak negotiating position. Malin has been adamant that the status quo is unacceptable to him. In the either/or scenario he puts forth, his preference is therefore a default position: I do not support the status quo, so I must support its alternative, however unattractive.
The city must not move forward with approving a casino hotel unless it's convinced the proposal is the absolute best use of city land, the riverfront, and city resources. The default position should be "No, thank you," with only a thorough, immensely compelling case from the Isle of Capri able to sway it from that stance.
Time is the city's ally. River Vision is a long-term plan that will be implemented over 15 or 20 years. If the status quo is not acceptable, it is something we can live with for at least the next decade, as River Vision starts to become a reality. It's not something that must be decided now. If the hotel proposal is flawed, or if the city council and the public are even slightly hesitant, any proposal should be rejected.
The Isle of Capri and the backers of a riverfront hotel seem to expect the public to take their claims as truth and their aims as benevolent. But Davenport voters won't take this leap on faith, and, hopefully, neither will the city council.
Virtually any discussion about a hotel is based on the assumption that there are only two options before the city. And that's at the root of public displeasure about the possibility of a riverfront hotel connected to the Rhythm City casino a block east of the boat's current location.
The problem with the assumption is that it's wrong. Or, at the very least, that there's been no attempt so far to prove to the public that the assumption is correct.
To date, the Isle of Capri (owner of the Rhythm City casino) has not put forward a formal proposal for a hotel. Mary Ellen Chamberlin, president of the Riverboat Development Authority, said a plan will probably not be forthcoming before October. This could not be confirmed because the casino's general manager, Nancy Donovan, did not return numerous phone calls over the past month.
But conceptual plans were presented to Davenport aldermen in individual or small-group meetings last month. Preliminary discussions have included moving the casino a block east and building an L-shaped, 11-story hotel on city-owned land between Brady and Perry Streets. Malin said the city would be asked to make roughly $5 million in infrastructure improvements (to be re-paid through revenue from increased property values at the casino-development site) and build two parking decks (that the Isle of Capri would pay for through long-term leases).
The concept raises many important questions: How well would a casino hotel fit with the River Vision plan? Does the public favor commercial development on the Davenport downtown riverfront, and if so, is this the best type of commercial development? How will a casino hotel impact the RiverCenter, the Radisson, and the Blackhawk Hotel? What (if any) is the appropriate level of city participation in this $50-million project?
Malin, Huber, and Chamberlin are happy to respond to all those questions. But they can't convincingly answer the bigger one: Why not someplace else? Until that question is answered to the satisfaction of most skeptics, the possibility of a casino hotel will only breed rancor.
"On a conceptual level, we've looked at every square inch of Davenport," Malin told me a few weeks ago. The city has explored putting a hotel on top of the Rhythm Courtyard and in Centennial Park, among other places, he said.
"The Isle doesn't believe there's sufficient return on investment," Malin said of alternative sites. "If they could make more money somewhere else, they'd be asking for it."
Fine. But where are the studies that thoroughly explore the pros and cons of each alternative considered by the city and the Isle of Capri? Where are the reports that show, as Chamberlin claims, that riverfront sites to the west of the current Rhythm City location won't work because of the soil quality? And the studies that show that building a complex on a man-made lake or moat would cost $100 million?
And if Jumer's Casino Rock Island is willing to spend $90 million for a casino/hotel complex floating on a man-made lake at an interstate-highway location, why isn't the Isle of Capri, a much larger company?
The critical element of winning public support is to convince doubters that every angle of every other alternative has been meticulously considered. That means producing credible documents showing why "infeasible" riverfront sites are infeasible and why "too costly" sites are too costly.
But Isle of Capri has been content to keep the public out of the process so far. The possibility of a hotel was inserted late in the River Vision planning process, and it wasn't the result of public input. Meanwhile, concept drawings have been shown to the Davenport City Council but not to citizens.
And Malin suggested several weeks ago that the public won't need more than a few weeks to digest the plan and its implications and make a decision on whether it supports the project. "I think you can show people two pictures and ask, 'Which one is better?'" he said. "People can come to an informed opinion" within two weeks.
That, of course, is silly. The River Vision process took many months with loads of public input. It arrived at a consensus by involving the public at every step. It started with a blank slate and an open question: What do we want for the riverfronts of Davenport and Rock Island? It encouraged participants to think big.
The people who support a riverfront casino hotel are thinking small, and it puts the city in a weak negotiating position. Malin has been adamant that the status quo is unacceptable to him. In the either/or scenario he puts forth, his preference is therefore a default position: I do not support the status quo, so I must support its alternative, however unattractive.
The city must not move forward with approving a casino hotel unless it's convinced the proposal is the absolute best use of city land, the riverfront, and city resources. The default position should be "No, thank you," with only a thorough, immensely compelling case from the Isle of Capri able to sway it from that stance.
Time is the city's ally. River Vision is a long-term plan that will be implemented over 15 or 20 years. If the status quo is not acceptable, it is something we can live with for at least the next decade, as River Vision starts to become a reality. It's not something that must be decided now. If the hotel proposal is flawed, or if the city council and the public are even slightly hesitant, any proposal should be rejected.
The Isle of Capri and the backers of a riverfront hotel seem to expect the public to take their claims as truth and their aims as benevolent. But Davenport voters won't take this leap on faith, and, hopefully, neither will the city council.
