Casino move delay irks Jacobs

Members of the Big Island Conservation District say they are not opposed to the planned move of Jumer's Casino Rock Island to a site off Interstate 280 and Illinois 92, but concede that concerns they have raised about how the project would impact Big Island's levee system have delayed its approval.

Casino officials and proponents hoped the Illinois Gaming Board would greenlight the move at its regular meeting in September, but a final vote was tabled, in part because of issues raised by the conservation district, Gaming Board spokesman Gene O'Shea confirmed Thursday.
...
"We've never been against the project," conservation district president Eugene Rebello said Thursday. "But we want to know if there's anything there that will affect our levee system."

The district tried to get drawings and information from casino officials before the September meeting, but never heard back from them, he said. That is why they requested a vote on the move be tabled.

"We wanted to make sure they had this material before they voted on it," he said. "Our duty is to make sure to protect the people on Big Island."

Though a deal that allowed the casino to acquire the I-280/Illinois 92 land angered some Big Island supporters, their dispute is with Moline-based RiverStone Group, not the casino, said Randy Wlaskolich of the Big Island Soil and Water Preservation Commission. The deal involved an agreement between the city and RiverStone for the company to sell the downstream site to the casino in exchange for a zoning change that could pave the way for a gravel mining operation.

"We're all for the riverboat," Wlaskolich said. "Nobody in their right mind is against economic development. We are against the gravel pit."

Project delays have irritated Sen. Mike Jacobs, D-East Moline. Back in the spring, he led the charge to draft legislation upholding the Gaming Board's right to approve the move after the Illinois Attorney General's office issued an opinion stating that the Riverboat Gaming Act did not grant that power.

That legislation was approved in August, and Jacobs expected the September meeting of the Gaming Board to be a slam dunk.

"It is frustrating to see an Illinois company that wants to expand, wants to grow, that is being stymied time and again by government," he said.

Still, he added, the board "has a responsibility to come down, look at the site and the Big Island issue." But if it does not vote soon, he vowed to act.

"If the board stalls the project any longer, I'm going to move to take legislative action to disband that board and get a board that will be more responsive to the needs of job creation," he said.

Bill Renk, the Casino Rock Island's vice president of sales and marketing, said he believes the relative newness of the Gaming Board, the current makeup was convened in July, is part of the reason the project has been delayed.

"These are new members and they haven't been hearing about our project for years," he said. "It's just been one thing after another. We're hoping for an answer on Tuesday."

O'Shea said a final vote could be taken during Tuesday's special meeting, but that is not guaranteed.

"The board is looking into every aspect, as they'd do with any casino," he said. "It's my understanding the conservancy district is a government body and has come to the board and raised these issues. The Gaming Board is duty-bound to look at those issues."

It's understandable why Sen. Jacobs wants action on this matter. After all, it's been repeatedly held up, first for months by the delay by Governor Blagojevich in appointing members to vacant seats on the state Gaming Board, and then by the legal snafu regarding the Board's ability to OK the casino relocation. And Jacobs has had to sign onto legislation to clear that hurdle already.

It's easy to see how this latest delay would be very frustrating to those who have been working for the move and who thought the finish line was in sight. And Jacobs' threat to purge the board may be just a bluff to spur them to action.

But there's also an interest in doing right by all parties involved, and apparently the Board feels it needs a bit more information before going forward.

But after all the delays and now that the full board is in place, if it doesn't rule the way Sen. Jacobs wants, or do it fast enough, Jacobs contemplates in essense firing the board members and replacing them with people who will rule quickly in favor of the Senator and casino operators? Or am I reading that wrong?

Substitute "gambling interests" for the buzz words "job creation" in Jacobs' quote above, and how does it sound?

Yes, jobs will be created, temporarily at least during the construction, and perhaps some expansion of casino jobs, but does anyone truly believe that's the primary concern of those pushing for the move? What about the angle of River Stone, who wants to open a stone quarry on Big Island? Can one really fault the Gaming Board and those on Big Island for wanting to take a little more time to make sure things are done right?

No one likes to be sucker punched or rolled in matters affecting the enviroment, their property, and lives. When the big boys make their moves, little guys often get hurt in the process. As the spokesman for the Big Island Soil and Water Preservation Commission stated, they have no beef with the Casino expansion, but rather are concerned with protecting the residents of Big Island from possible effects on the levees protecting their properties.

"Follow the money" holds true here as always. Board members don't stand to be enriched by delaying the proposed move. Neither do Big Island residents, though they most definitely stand to be harmed if levee work is not done properly.

But the other parties stand to make a boatload of money (excuse the pun) if the move is approved without further scrutiny or delay. It's worth noting that both Riverstone Group and numerous gambling interests have been large campaign donors, which of course is their right. (Riverstone Group has donated $10,790 to the Rock Island County Republican Centeral Committee alone in just over three years. To see all their contributions, go here, and enter Riverstone in the name field.)

Jacobs stated intentions to toss out the Gaming Board and replace it with one more amenable to his desires begs the question, if you're just going to purge them until you find people who will do your bidding, and by extention, the bidding of the gambling interests they're supposed to regulate and oversee, does not that defeat the entire purpose?

The Gaming Board is there for a reason, presumably to regulate a potentially damaging industry which is ripe for corruption due to the torrent of skimable money flowing through it, not to mention the historical attraction it holds for organized crime figures. It's duty is to listen to all those impacted by this proposed move and ensure that all interests are given proper attention and weight.

If a governmental body such as the Gaming Board can not be independent and has no ultimate authority, the whole thing is a charade, is it not?