zink wrote:^ agreed. I see Lumier Casino as a local business no different than th Cigar Bar on Washingon and 10th. I go to the Casino once maybe twice a year. Visit the Four Seasons Spa a lot more than that.
Now I do have a problem if we are giving incentives for MORE casinos because I agree that it would not add incremental tax revenue to ur region.
So when we went from zero casinos to one, we got incremental tax revenue, or from one to two, two to three, three to four, or four to five...
But only now is it true that adding another casino would be a net wash in revenue?
I actually agree that we wouldn't get any benefit, but I've also thought that from the beginning, since the vote that basically paved the way for land-based, uh, riverboats.
^Haha. Thanks for pointing out the whole riverboat, boat-in-a-moat swindle. What a ridiculous piece of legislation that is. It would be cool if there were actual riverboats that had to go on cruises (which I think the original law stipulated).
bprop wrote:But only now is it true that adding another casino would be a net wash in revenue?
I think this is the case. There is good reason to believe that St. Louis is about a $1b to $1.1b gambling market. If another casino were built within the metro area it might add a little revenue, but mostly would just spread the revenue thinner and cannibalize other casino's business. There are casinos Northwest (Ameristar & Harrahs), Northeast (Alton Belle), East (Casino Queen), South (RiverCity), and Central (Lumiere). In any other directions there aren't the requisite rivers (Mississippi & Missouri) to allow for one. I guess if we are stuck with them it's best to have the biggest nicest casinos that offer the most ancillary amenities (hotels, spas, restaurants, bars, shops, etc...) than small struggling gambling halls that bring little else to the community (ie the now defunct President's Casino).
Like them or not, Casinos feed a vice that makes money for the City.
A-B does the same thing.
So do the micro-breweries.
Gambling, though, makes the most money for MO schools, to which the school districts' budgets have become dependent.
Everyone has their vices. Some like cards, some like beer, some like girls, some like Lotto. I personally love my cigarettes and caffeine, with maybe an occasional pint or night out at the boats. It's hard to call one out without calling out all the others...
Focus: The question of how big a draw STL Casinos are to tourism is all about execution.
Absolutely, tourists come to STL to gamble; that's why they're almost all built with giant hotels and huge parking garages (coming soon to River City). I know of many out-of-towners who travel to STL for the gambling, from RVs heading here full of Southerners and Great Plains residents ready to gamble somewhere other than Vegas, to the single greatest basketball star to ever play the pro game, "His Airness #23" Michael Jordan, who often plays in STL and I've heard even meets up other NBA greats to play here (spotting Oakley at the Westin, etc.). Yeah, no kidding.
That said, we don't have a gambling district per se. Instead, we have casinos all over the Metro Area, including Downtown, South City/Lemay, Maryland Heights, Saint Charles, Alton, and East STL (where the casino tax revenues are 100% crucial to the City's survival). The only time they're relatively proximate to each other, it's because they're in different political jurisdictions (Lumiere & Casino Queen, and Ameristar & Harrah's/Hollywood), and you have to cross not just a border but a river to get from one to the other.
Such separation between venues compels each casino to seek out its own individual market bases, rather than having a strip where 2 or 3 casinos are along the same street. Doing that would make STL have an actual "Casino District", and through them building a collective sustainable mass of direct tourism. The creation of such a "District" would be a great marketing campaign which could be used all over the US to draw in new tourists that would prefer a real City with ball teams rather than just Disney in the Desert.
All one has to do is think of Tunica, MS, where a cluster of casinos in direct proximity to each other (and golf courses, too) has created a hub for tourism in the middle of a Mississippi flood plain that's too hot & sticky for even the mosquitos.
Want a quick shot-in-the-arm for East STL?
Open the land directly north of the Dr. King Bridge to multiple high-end casino developments targeted for tourists.
What I really want: A true gambling excursion river boat, traveling between STL & NOLA, with gambling the whole time. And yes, I'm thinking of the movie Maverick. Now, one can gamble on cruiseliners in international waters; could it ever be possible to have a gambling boat that travels across state lines?
I disagree. The problem with a Casino is that the profits leave the local economy to Las Vegas where Pinnacle is Headquartered. The profits that Stanleys Cigar Bar receives is funneled back through the local economy in the purchase of goods and services. Only 13% of revenue is circulated back through the local economy by a national retailer as opposed to 52% for an independent local business.
Casinos are like a vacuum cleaner when it comes to economic development
gone corporate wrote:All one has to do is think of Tunica, MS
Exactly. St. Louis shouldn't be anything like Tunica.
I think a casino district is a terrible idea. What ends up happening is that there is a higher end casino that draws people in with fancy restaurants, spas, and amenities, a lower end casino with lower buy-ins and cheaper drinks, and then super-low end casinos with .99 cent beers, $5 steak dinners, $1 black jack tables, and generally seedy, sad and disgusting conditions. See Reno or Atlantic City for examples. This same dynamic happens in Vegas, but on a much bigger scale.
innov8ion wrote:Lake Tahoe might not be too bad -- but just because it seems super freaking beautiful out there.
yeah, definitely. everyone else at this conference who has gone to lake tahoe has raved about it. hopefully i'll be going tomorrow. but it's about an hour's drive, and i'm just talking about Reno proper.
Wabash wrote:
I think a casino district is a terrible idea. What ends up happening is that there is a higher end casino that draws people in with fancy restaurants, spas, and amenities, a lower end casino with lower buy-ins and cheaper drinks, and then super-low end casinos with .99 cent beers, $5 steak dinners, $1 black jack tables, and generally seedy, sad and disgusting conditions. See Reno or Atlantic City for examples. This same dynamic happens in Vegas, but on a much bigger scale.
Um...we already have that. Have you been to the Queen or the President before it was removed. It doesn't if they're all together or all far apart, the market is going to dictate the quality of the industry.
I for one think it would be a great idea, especially the one of putting a district on the East Side north of the MLK. A great way to pump money into East St. Louis and hopefully give it some growth.
It seems as thought there's two against camps on this issue (and certainly some people who are in both camps): Those who don't think it brings in all that much money to the metro and, as such, isn't worth it, and those who think a casino industry is somehow beneath us. The former is a fair issue on which to debate. The second, to me, is just silly. We're a struggling metro in, what most of people consider, "flyover country" -- I'll take revenue and tourism dollars where ever I can get it.
gone corporate wrote:^Largely agree, but what if it was local? What of the revenues to Isle of Capri (HQ in Creve Coeur)?
Then it would be a slightly different story. Just because its large corporation doesnt change the "local" ingredient if they are based here. It would be more beneficial to support a local casino company than an out of town casino company.
innov8ion wrote:Lake Tahoe might not be too bad -- but just because it seems super freaking beautiful out there.
I've been to Tahoe a couple of times, and yes, it really is super freaking beautiful. Once inside a casino, however, you could just as well be anywhere.
onecity wrote:Casinos are beneath us. Unless your dream is making the city trashier.
/making the city money
? Casino's don't make cities money. Perhaps tax money, but if the "city" is understood to be more than govt and includes residents and businesses, they casinos take money.
onecity wrote:Casinos are beneath us. Unless your dream is making the city trashier.
/making the city money
? Casino's don't make cities money. Perhaps tax money, but if the "city" is understood to be more than govt and includes residents and businesses, they casinos take money.
Yeah, I meant tax money.
Also they seem employ a lot of people, for whatever that's worth.
Quid pro quo: The Casinos in Metro STL aren't going anywhere.
Meanwhile, the Casino Queen really is the lifeblood of the City of East Saint Louis. It is the largest funder of tax revenues to East STL by an order of magnitude (2005: $10.5M local tax monies allocated, pre-expansion), and it is the city's largest single employer, with over 1,000 jobs ongoing in East STL. It has been directly credited with reducing the City's property taxes, funding infrastructure repairs, and cleaning up abandoned buildings, as well as sponsoring community improvement programs.
Like it or not, East STL lives and dies on the Casino Queen.
Therefore, if there ever is to be expansion of casinos in the STL Metro Area, I strongly believe the best place for it would be in a clustered grouping of casinos directly north of the Dr. King Bridge near the riverfront (in a way that doesn't interfere with rail traffic) and possibly stretching all the way up to Route 3 north of 64/40.
These are the cities that could use the tax revenues the most, while not being necessarily full of people who will amble up to the tables regularly because they simply can't afford to. These taxes could increase policing and education while improving transportation infrastructure, all of which could combine to reinvent the Near East Side into an attractive place for new businesses and employers of the local talent base (warehousing and light manufacturing). At the same time, the tax burdens for property owners decreases strongly, easing the burdens already on these generally empoverished home owners (yes, I know most don't own but rent). Meanwhile, the site itself could feature hotels, a convention space, and plenty of tables to welcome in tourists (not the local market, already near saturation in exposure). Tie it into the Casino Queen's current location (with new roads under the Dr. King and Eads Bridges), and we could have a true district.
Seriously, think about it: East STL turns into an actual tourist destination, a legitimate one, with people ready to park their RVs and spend their monies on gambling, something they've intended to do already if they're traveling to "destination casinos" and for which we shouldn't feel taken advantage of. And in the process, the Near East Side pulls in revenues that they couldn't dream of before.
Draftkings is entering a 5+ year deal to run the Casino Queen's retail sports book and in doing so will be able to operate their online platform throughout Illinois. Naming rights are also part of the deal, it will now be the Draftkings at Casino Queen.
Maybe KC does, but I'm not sure St. Louis really "needs" it given that it's walking distance from downtown.
But it is stupid that Missouri is taking its time on this when it seems inevitable.
It's issues like this that make me not really understand the flag-waving freedom party. If you're going to base your whole identity on personal freedom regardless of consequences, then shouldn't nearly all activities between consenting adults be legal?
It's total crap that I have to drive two miles over some imaginary line to bet $10 on some college hoops today. MOLeg needs to fast track this. Legalization has been endorsed by even the MOs sports team right? What's the hold up? Money probably? We've legalized weed so I don't think it's the "conservative" nature of the State government so I think there something else at play. Just get this done MOLeg damn.
