Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 19 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
If casinos are here to stay, move them in
Published Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Could the rising tide of the Mississippi River force a reexamination of some old rules?
In the wee hours on Sunday morning, the City of Natchez forced the closure of the Isle of Capri Casino due to floodwater encroaching the Isle’s landing at Natchez Under-the-Hill.
With the closure a large chunk of taxes floated away, too.
City and state leaders have become dependent upon gaming taxes; losing that money — even if for a brief time — is going to hurt.
City officials were correct in closing the Isle. Safety should come first, but safety can be costly, too.
Mayor Phillip West last week estimated the Isle’s taxes brought between $800,000 and $1 million annually to the city.
Just doing the raw math — the Isle’s closure will cost the city between $15,000 and $19,000 each week its closed.
With the river not expecting to crest for almost another week, we anticipate the casino is likely to be closed at least two weeks, perhaps more. Fortunately for Isle workers, the company has said it will continue to pay their employees as if the casino was still operating.
Floods like the one we’re experiencing have a way of forcing us all to see things in different ways and consider different options.
Perhaps the flood of 2008 will be one that forces the state to reexamine the requirement that all casinos — save the three coast counties and ones on Native American lands — have their gaming floors physically on water.
It’s been 16 years since the first casino in Mississippi opened. Much has changed in that time, but has our attitude toward the gaming industry and the restrictions on where casinos must be located?
Comments
Posted by fatherof4 (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 12:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
City taxes is 3% of sales tax on money taken in. Everybody must not be winning down there!
Posted by Fairytale (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 1:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes move them in. Imagine if Nevada had said ok you can build them, but only on top of a cactus plant!
Wouldn't be too safe would it.
Posted by csguidry (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is a tuff one to answer. If the river is the problem and they think it is unsafe for the casino to operate then they should allow them the choice to mover on land. I don't feel a couple of casino's will hurt but do not over do it. Too many just causes too many problems and it hurts each others business in the end and they more or less all close down secondly if no one is winning at the things then chances are word wil get around and people who gamble will drive to other areas where they have at least some chance of winning.
Right now the only competition the Isle of Capri has is Vicksburg and Baton Rouge. So their slots are not too loose nor do many win there. I have seen that my self but I have noticed the more competition they have the more chances you have of winning because they all want your business.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I will come out and say the reason the law limits gambling to water.
It is a pander to moralists, who would like any limitation democracy could afford them insofar as curtailing the gambling menace. The outright prohibition would not fly, so they got this concession.
Once it became legal for land-based casinos, no little town full of moralists anywhere would feel safe. Churches and ball parks would have to compete with the thrill of gambling. Lions would lie down with lambs and there would be blood flowing in the streets. And God would look down on our debased civilization and punish us as a nation.
Or, maybe not -- He,he!
Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
it was interesting how non-immoral gambling became when the casinos on the coast were flattened and the state was losing out on millions in revenue. Man those new buildings on terra firma went up fast.
The coast is still a mess but those casinos were built in record time.
It is all about the $$$$. I have no problem with gambling on land, I just like seeing the "riverboats".
Posted by prettybrowneyedblackgirl (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What are you thinking unhuh. Leave God out of your mess whatever happens with the river and the boat is in God's plan maybe you should float away also.
Posted by destiny (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
JMO: They just as well build on land somewhere in a cow pasture as on the river. Gambling is gambling wherever it's located and people are going to visit a casino regardless. I remember when the gambling boat burned in Vidalia, years ago (boy telling my age for sure here) all the gamblers still gambled. If not out in the open, they were at their favorite bar in the back room. That's just what was going on here in Natchez but the city and state government didn't get their share. I've seen gambler's wheeled in who were in a wheel chair, down at the boat. I've seen them on crutches and canes coming in to gamble. So what's the problem building on land? It's been years since I visited the boat, but I have my memories.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well pretty browneyed black girl maybe you missed my point.
The law was created in part because of what a lot of people feel is God's wishes for us. I think God was included from the start and not because I asked for it. The legislature did it.
Maybe you couldn't tell my tongue was in my cheek with that comment.
I don't have a problem with the boat or boats. People need some good vices so they can learn not to stick their hand in the fire, He,he!
Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Atlantic City and Las Vegas are packed with people in wheel chairs and dragging around oxygen tanks.
People love to gemble. Why not, it is THEIR money.
Posted by observer (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Funny, but I heard a very knowledgeable speaker at a Rotary Club meeting state, with excellent statistics and research to back her up, that Natchez is a "one casino town". Which will go under first (no pun intended) - the Isle, Lane Company or Grand Soleil?
Natchez is not on an interstate, has no planes or trains and you have to want to come here to get here. Why bother, when Vicksburg and Marksville and Tunica are so much more accessible?
Also, maybe the mayor will try to sell off the rest of the bluff lands to the casinos. But, or course, the Corp of Engineers has said they are limited to making repairs after floods and natural disasters. So when the bluffs collapse under the weight of the condos and the casinos, will the Corp not re-do the soil nails to try to hold up what's left? Maybe unwise building is not considered a "natural" disaster.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 6:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Look at the half full side of the coin, to mix a couple of metaphors, if the bluff falls, guess what, new bluff and more land below it to protect it...LOL.
Seriously, Yeahwhatever, is correct. When I was involved in the construction for the then Lady Luck, the "riverboat only" idea was a device used by the lawmakers, who wanted the infusion of money into the area, but weren't sure it could succeed.
Remember Natchez was the guinea pig in this deal. The lawmaker's idea was to be able to cut'em loose and let them float down river if they were financially unsuccessful or the public outcry against gambling was too politically costly. No gambling by the politicos...LOL.
Now that Katrina has given the coast an even more tremendous advantage with onshore casinos than the one they already had, by being on a beach with an interstate and between large population centers, it leaves us, from Natchez to Tunica, at an unfair disadvantage to compete. The onshore law ought to be for all!
Posted by CitizenSane (anonymous) on April 16, 2008 at 9:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Las Vegas and Atlantic City are not just gambling towns, they are wonderful places to live and raise a family, right?
NOT!
Those of you who dream of the greener pastures in Las Vegas and Atlantic City, why don't you just move there?
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on April 16, 2008 at 10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CitizenSane (wow, what a misnomer) I had a friend of mine who lived in Atlantic City for 25 years and raised a family there...he didn't have a problem...can't speak for Vegas, but I'm sure that there are plenty of good, upstanding people raising families there too...you paint with too broad a brush merely to justify your prejudice.
Posted by GopherBaroque (anonymous) on April 21, 2008 at 5:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bring them into downtown Natchez. There are lots of vacant buildings down there. How about the old First Baptist Church as the "First Natchez Casino?" Wouldn't that be irony. Let all the businesses have a slot or two beside the front door. Natchez could become the gambling capitol of the Miss-Lou area.
Posted by Preacher (anonymous) on April 21, 2008 at 11:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's a sorry situation when a city and state depends on the misery of its citizens to fund its own selfish desires. When even one family loses, we all lose, and since the gambling boat has been in Natchez there have been thousands of losers. The gambling marketing ploy is very effective and draws suckers every day to relieve them of money needed for rent, food and utilities. Has it not dawned on anyone that this money could be recycled many times over if spent for food and other tangible services. When this money is spent at the boat, it is simply gone forever. Keep them in the water. Hopefully they will wash on down stream and get tangled in the rest of the river trash. I know, it's probably just wishful thinking. Who knows. Natchez might wake up one day and smell the real coffee and get rid of all the casinos and get back to caring about people and not just money.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Preacher...I was hoping someone like you would regurgitate the same old argument...has it ever occured to you that the people employed in these establishments would be able to buy food or other tangible services if they weren't employed...your "statistics" about how many losers there have been is purely anecdotal and not statistical at all...you also lose sight of the reason for the casino in the first place...it is a business...it's reason for being is to make a profit...the people gambling are paying for entertainment..."the money is gone forever"...more BS, much of the money is spent right here in Natchez for goods and services the casino needs to operate and also for PAYROLL!
If your beef is a purely spiritual/moral one speak to that, don't muddy the water with half-truths and unsubstantiated anecdotes to prove a point that is indefensible. Would you rather your flock starve or live with gambling as a fact of life?
Posted by Preacher (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 11:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tell all that garbage about how wonderful gambling is, to those who have lost their retirement, their jobs, and their family. Tell the women who have been so consumed by gambling that they have turned to prostitution and now sell their bodies and soul just to get change to play the slots one more time. Tell the truck drivers wife who hasn't seen her husband in 6 months because he is too ashamed to come home and tell her he lost it all by gambling. Tell everyone that wakes up Sunday morning with empty pockets and no food on the table for himself or his family, that gambling is "simply entertainment". And don't try to tell me it "aint so". Just ask Pastors and counselors and bankers and doctors in our area about what they have seen and the personal stories of the lives that have been destroyed by our city and state allowing gambling to be disguised as a legitimate business. It is certianly a moral judgment on all of us that we have completely pushed the reality and deadly side affects of this poison underground and ignored its corruption and distruction of human lives. The sooner we get rid of gambling, the better off our society will be. What is sad, is that it probably will not happen in my lifetime since the city and the state is in on the "take". I better quit before I get on a roll. If I haven't made myself clear, I am totaly against gambling and for a lot more reasons than I simply "think" its wrong.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on April 25, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The problems aren't with gambling...they're with the character flaws that have allowed these people you cite to behave stupidly...work on that instead of trying to dictate your brand of morality to me!
Posted by Preacher (anonymous) on April 29, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you for opening the door. It is wrong for government, society or business to prey on the ignorant and the innocent. Legalized gambling intentionally targets that weakness in all of us. It is the easy access that makes it worse. The most insidious example is the lottery, which is available in almost every convenience store in Louisiana. They know we have "character flaws" and they intentionally use them against us for our loss and their gain. You must look for back street gambling opportunities, but when it is sanctioned by the state on main street, in every service station or under the hill, it is too easy for society to be conned out of their paycheck, because the goverment says it is a legitimate business and actively promotes it on radio, tv and billboards. It all started with the idea of how can we get more money from the society and make them think they are getting something for nothing. Better yet, we can convince them that they they might even get rich. Government should not be active in intentionally making losers out of their citizens and that is the ultimate state of gambling.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)