Environmentalists for Casinos?

Maybe the solution to the controversy surrounding the possibility of a new casino near the Columbia Riverbottom conservation area is as simple as lifting the restrictions on where casinos can be built.  What if Missouri changed its gaming laws so that casinos didn’t need to be located on or near a river?  Such a change might benefit lots of Missourians.

First, consider the environmentalists.  Many people are concerned about bringing any kind of industry (casino or otherwise) into nature preservation areas.  Some contend that the Harrah’s and Ameristar Casinos are already eyesores in the midst of otherwise pristine nature areas.  A casino near the Great Confluence wildlife area would surely garner the ire of environmentalists.  Some environmentalist groups have been reported to be gearing up for a fight at this location near the Chain of Rocks bridge.  Maybe they should aim their weapons not at casinos, but at legislature that requires casinos to build on waterfront property.

If casinos didn’t have to build on the river, I wonder if they would choose to build elsewhere.  With so many factories recently closed down, I suspect real estate might be cheaper at a closed factory than along a riverfront.  Plus, if a casino had the freedom to locate anywhere, maybe they would choose to locate somewhere that’s not so close to another casino (e.g. Pinnacle’s Lumiere Place and President Casino).

Why do casinos in Missouri need to be on a river anyway?  Originally, they had to be on riverboats that traveled up and down the rifer.  I presume this restriction was a way to limit the total number of casinos or as a way for casino operators to float between jurisdictions of neighboring states.  But then they were allowed to be docked, so long as they floated (like the President Casino or the Alton Belle).  Then, they just had to be located within a prescribed proximity to a river, so long as the casino’s gaming floor still floated on water.  (Many casino patrons might be surprised to learn that the seat at their slot machine is actually sitting on top of what essentially amounts to an overgrown swimming pool.)

Have these water-based restrictions outlived their usefulness?  Maybe it’s time to revisit this limitation.  The number of casinos is already strictly controlled by law, so releasing the water restriction won’t result in a proliferation of casinos.  Zoning laws and city planners can keep casinos out of residential areas the same way they keep out factories and other industrial businesses.  Owners of empty factories could enjoy revenue from sale or lease of their vacant property.  Environmentalists would have an alternative to offer in stead of sacrificing natural resources.  And casinos could enjoy the freedom to choose location based on business reasons, rather than geologic factors.

Of course, we all know that change does not come without great effort.  Sure, the casino industry is strong (they managed to lift the $500 loss limit last year and garner an exception from the smoking ban this year, right?) but if environmental groups like the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club along with local groups like Missouri Coalition for the Environment and the residents of Spanish Lake who oppose the new proposed casino all joined with St Louis gaming industry – maybe all together they could enact legal change that would make everyone happy.

Advertisement