As the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission (IRGC) approaches its crucial February 6th meeting to decide whether to approve a gaming license for a proposed Cedar Rapids casino, the debate over the project has intensified. Key players, including state lawmakers and existing casino operators, are working behind the scenes to sway the outcome. The proposed $275 million Cedar Crossing Casino in Cedar Rapids has become a flashpoint, with opponents arguing that it will negatively impact nearby casinos, while supporters highlight the economic potential and increased state revenue the casino could bring.
A critical decision looms for Cedar Rapids Casino proposal:
On Thursday, the IRGC heard a petition from Riverside Casino and Washington County Riverboat Foundation, seeking to block the approval of the gaming license for Linn County, which includes Cedar Rapids. The petition claims that the wording of the ballot referendum used to extend voter approval for a gaming license is invalid. According to Riverside’s legal representation, the referendum’s use of the word “continue” was misleading, as there had been no existing casino in Linn County to continue. Riverside argues that this invalidates the entire process, a claim which the Cedar Rapids Development Group, LLC, behind the Cedar Crossing Casino, vehemently disputes.
As reported by KCRG, during the hearing, the lawyer representing Cedar Rapids’ interests, Guy Cook, asserted that the petition was filed in bad faith. “This petition is not real, it’s not genuine,” Cook argued, emphasizing that it was merely a tactic to undermine the IRGC’s authority and bring the issue before a district court judge.
However, Riverside’s attorney, Mike Weinhardt, sharply countered, calling the petition a legitimate effort to address what he sees as a potentially damaging move for the Riverside Casino, which could lose significant revenue if the Cedar Rapids casino opens. “An interested party, Riverside, the one who is going to be most cannibalized in the event that this casino is built in Cedar Rapids, raised a legitimate question at its earliest opportunity,” Weinhardt said.
The IRGC also reviewed studies it had commissioned on the potential economic impact of a Cedar Rapids casino. These studies showed that while the project would increase overall state gaming revenue, the profits would largely come at the expense of existing casinos. Riverside Casino, in particular, could lose as much as 26% of its revenue due to competition from the new Cedar Rapids facility. Other nearby casinos, like Meskwaki Bingo Casino Hotel and Isle Casino in Waterloo, could also see significant revenue losses.
Political push for a casino moratorium:
As the IRGC prepares for its decision, a broader political battle is unfolding at the state legislative level. Opponents of the Cedar Rapids casino, led by key figures like Rep. Bobby Kaufmann and Sen. Jeff Reichman, are pushing for a five-year moratorium on new casino licenses. This proposal is moving through the legislative process in an effort to prevent any new licenses from being issued, particularly targeting the Cedar Rapids proposal.
A bill introduced by Kaufmann, House Study Bill 80, aims to block new casinos until June 30, 2030. The bill, which has already gained traction in the Iowa House, would also impose new criteria for the IRGC, restricting new licenses if a proposed casino would decrease the revenue of existing casinos by more than 10%. According to Iowa Capital Dispatch, Kaufmann’s bill is designed to protect established casinos in the state, particularly those like Riverside that could be directly impacted by the new Cedar Rapids facility.
Meanwhile, Republican state Sen. Jeff Reichman introduced a similar moratorium bill in the Senate, which would also extend until 2030. These bills come just weeks before the IRGC is set to vote on the Cedar Rapids proposal, adding urgency to the legislative process. Rep. Kaufmann has indicated that the legislature could act swiftly, but the bill faces significant hurdles, including the need to pass through subcommittees and full chambers in both the House and Senate before the February 6th IRGC decision.
For some lawmakers, the debate over the Cedar Rapids casino centers on a broader issue: the potential economic benefits versus the risks to existing jobs and businesses. While the proposed casino is projected to bring in new revenue, Rep. Sami Scheetz, D-Cedar Rapids, has argued that the benefits outweigh the challenges. He believes that Cedar Rapids deserves a fair chance to compete in the state’s gaming market, particularly given the revenue losses Iowa has experienced from neighboring states with expanding casinos.
Scheetz also expressed frustration that some supporters of the moratorium are involved in building casinos in neighboring Nebraska, directly competing with Iowa’s gaming market. He contends that focusing on the economic gains from gaming tourism and new revenue should take priority over protecting the interests of established casinos.
Conversely, Kaufmann argues that the potential losses for local casinos like Riverside cannot be ignored. “The benefit does not outweigh people losing their jobs,” Kaufmann said, reflecting his concerns about the impact a new casino would have on workers at existing gaming facilities. The argument is grounded in his personal experience in Cedar County, where Riverside Casino employs hundreds of individuals.
The legislative and IRGC battles come at a time when Iowa’s gaming landscape is already undergoing significant shifts. In recent years, there has been growing competition from neighboring states, and the state has seen a gradual decline in overall gaming revenue. With the state’s budget under pressure, some legislators are wary of adding new casinos that might siphon revenue from existing businesses rather than generating truly new economic growth.
