Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 20 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Lane casino closer to reality
Published Thursday, November 29, 2007
NATCHEZ — The Lane Company is getting closer to building their riverfront casino, Lane spokesman Ted Doody said Wednesday.
The company signed an option agreement with the city in July, committing to building a casino and riverfront development under Roth Hill.
“We are going to be going through the city planning approval process and the planning commission review over the next month,” Doody said Wednesday.
The casino will be built on land rather than a riverboat, he said.
“It will be built on the edge of the Roth Hill site, overlooking the river,” he said. “We have been working very closely with the Natchez Historic Foundation on design works.”
The casino will be a two-story building, approximately 40,000 square feet.
Doody said he could not release information about what the casino would look like or what their required non-gambling investment would be.
“A lot has to do with proprietary information,” he said. “This is not to keep anyone in the dark. We’re still trying to finalize designs for approval. As soon as we’ve gotten some final approvals from leaders in cities, we’ll release the plans and let everybody know what’s going on.”
Mayor Phillip West said he was not at liberty to divulge details.
“I do know they are moving forward,” West said.
West said he expected the company to enter into a lease agreement in a matter of months.
“They’re moving full speed ahead,” he said. “They expect to be successful in getting necessary approvals and permits (from state and federal agencies).”
The option agreement gives Lane six months to sign with the city and enter into a lease agreement.
Comments
Posted by ntzmom (anonymous) on November 29, 2007 at 3:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I thought the LAW on casinos in Mississippi were that they HAD to be on the water...not on land over looking water.
Am I wrong about that?
Posted by formernatchezian (anonymous) on November 29, 2007 at 6:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is all I could find on it, I guess Adams Co. has slipped into the same somehow.
(b) In a structure located in whole or in part on shore in any of the three (3) most southern counties in the State of Mississippi in which the registered voters of the county have voted to allow such betting, gaming or wagering on cruise vessels as provided in Section 19-3-79, if:
(i) The structure is owned, leased or controlled by a person possessing a gaming license, as defined in Section 75-76-5, to conduct legal gaming on a cruise vessel under paragraph (a) of this section;
(ii) The part of the structure in which licensed gaming activities are conducted is located entirely in an area which is located no more than eight hundred (800) feet from the mean high-water line (as defined in Section 29-15-1) of the waters within the State of Mississippi, which lie adjacent to the State of Mississippi south of the three (3) most southern counties in the State of Mississippi, including the Mississippi Sound, St. Louis Bay, Biloxi Bay and Pascagoula Bay, or, with regard to Harrison County only, no farther north than the southern boundary of the right-of-way for U.S. Highway 90, whichever is greater; and
(iii) In the case of a structure that is located in whole or part on shore, the part of the structure in which licensed gaming activities are conducted shall lie adjacent to state waters south of the three (3) most southern counties in the State of Mississippi, including the Mississippi Sound, St. Louis Bay, Biloxi Bay and Pascagoula Bay. When the site upon which the structure is located consists of a parcel of real property, easements and rights-of-way for public streets and highways shall not be construed to interrupt the contiguous nature of the parcel, nor shall the footage contained within the easements and rights-of-way be counted in the calculation of the distances specified in subparagraph (ii).
Posted by progressntz81 (anonymous) on November 29, 2007 at 7:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It will probably float in a lagoon rather than the actual river. That's my suspicion because Adams County is not included in the above exceptions. Those were created in the aftermath of Katrina strictly for the Coast.
Posted by ntzmom (anonymous) on November 29, 2007 at 7:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
hmmm
Thank you former for the info
Posted by ijohnson (anonymous) on November 29, 2007 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't you think this argument/question is mute??? If they are moving forward, evidently this type of structure is allowed. Otherwise, it would not be in the making. Surely the folks involved have attorneys and people in place to address this issue. That's just my take on it.
Posted by sipboy (anonymous) on November 29, 2007 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If I'm not mistaken the Rainbow Casino is not the River either. It almost gives you the impression that it is on land but overlooks the water just like they are talking about with this one. I maybe wrong but that's how I have viewed it.
Posted by ntzluv (anonymous) on November 29, 2007 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The casinos in Philadelphia MS are on land...not water!
Posted by gemccull (Gary McCullars) on November 29, 2007 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, but supposedly, it is on an Indian Reservation.
Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on November 29, 2007 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
horray for more businesses in Natchez! Jobs jobs jobs!
Posted by destiny (anonymous) on November 29, 2007 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I went to Boloxi and was surprised to see all the casinos on land. It really felt odd waking into the building and not seeing water anywhere. Stayed maybe an hour and took home ten bucks, so it was worth it I guess. Ten bucks an hour is pretty good pay for having fun. I never made that much working.
Posted by protectthebluff (anonymous) on November 29, 2007 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What kinds of Jobs? Do you think that the manager of the casino will be a natchezian??? Cleaning the restrooms, giving free drinks to people (mostly poor guys) will be the jobs for our community, cheap jobs... Gambling : what a bright future for Natchez. Casinos don't bring tourists, it's not even good for the economic development of a city. Would it be good for us to have a riverfront like it is in Vicksburg : no public access to the water, not even a view on the river ? Mississippians have such a lack of imagination : Natchez has one of the most incredible view on the river in the USA, but the only thing we care about is to build ugly structures (it will be awful to replace a green area by concrete, anyhow) on the banks of the river. I think that's a crime. Indians say that we borrow the land of future generations... Well, with a short term political view, we destroy the land we live on, we destroy the nature and the public space.
Horray for more pollution in Natchez !
Posted by progressntz81 (anonymous) on November 29, 2007 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Okay... Casinos can only be on land in the three coastal counties. The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians is immune from this because they are not under the State of Mississippi. Any casino built anywhere else in Mississippi MUST float, whether that is in the actual river like the Isle of Capri in Natchez or in a lagoon like the Rainbow, Ameristar, Diamond Jacks, and the Horizon in Vicksburg. This allows the boats to be fixed at a certain elevation and not subject to the seasonal levels of the river. Depending on how the casino is built, you might not ever see the water of the lagoon. But in Mississippi (execpt the Coast and the Choctaw Reservation) the casion CAN NOT touch soil.
Posted by peacerulz (anonymous) on November 29, 2007 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't care how many "jobs" come with these casinos. Alot more will be gained by them, the casinos, than will be gained by this community.
Posted by lowrider (anonymous) on November 29, 2007 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Peace isn't that the case with any business, if this wasn't the nature of the beast, it wouldn't survive.
Posted by lowrider (anonymous) on November 29, 2007 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
also your talking about 300+ jobs per casino
Posted by ntzmom (anonymous) on November 29, 2007 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you look at the papers in the courthouse, the location of the new casino does not even belondg to the city.
It was donated land and it was supposed to only be a promanade for the city.
The Callon building broke that rule as well.
My husband was on the Grand jury and found that info once and was quickly told to drop it.
Funny how Natcez makes up its own rules at times.
Posted by shedevil (anonymous) on November 29, 2007 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I dont think I would worry about the casino locating here...just another one of Buckets ghost projects...
Posted by frogprincenessntz (anonymous) on November 29, 2007 at 6:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ntzmom, never before have we had the luxury of having others available to help find and expose information such as your husband found. Share the knowledge of where to look with the others on the comments section, and see if they can get any further. Seems like I have read the edge of that information also, but cannot remember where. It may prevent "our officials" from selling our land out from under us.
Posted by kd (anonymous) on November 29, 2007 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What dif does it make if it's on land or water? I've always wondered that.
Anyway, just what we need, another casino!
Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on November 30, 2007 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The casinos are a win-win situtation. Why do people knock this business opportunity. Face it, there is no more industry here--industry jobs are vanishing all over the US. People who would travel to Vegas or the Coast now can come to Natchez. We are becoming a service oriented society. Better that Natchez grab it than some other river town beat us to it. Look at what happened to little old Branson Missouri.
Folks the glass is half-full, not half-empty.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)