St. Louis County Council Clears Way For North County Casino

While thousands of St. Louis county voters took to the polls yesterday to decide important issues like a smoking ban and increased 911 funding, the fate of the largest stretch of undeveloped Mississippi River waterfront in the St.

[NOCOstl]

North County has a real opportunity to become a destination for eco-tourism, especially around the confluence. This casino will not only ruin that opportunity but also spoil one of the most beautiful natural areas in all of St. Louis. Bad decision, county council.

Shannon Howard
NOCOstl.com

[Cujo]

NOCOstl wrote:

North County has a real opportunity to become a destination for eco-tourism, especially around the confluence. This casino will not only ruin that opportunity but also spoil one of the most beautiful natural areas in all of St. Louis. Bad decision, county council.
Shannon Howard
NOCOstl.com

I agree completely.
Using flood plains for development merely because they are the only ground still available and reasonable in cost is very myopic at best. And it reeks of exploiting the environment and our precious natural resources.
Having casinos only in proximity to our rivers is also quite illusory now that the "Riverboats" we voted on were all docked for safety and practical reasons.
Why not be even more practical and just allow the casinos to be anywhere?
I like the idea someone had in the other forum, make gambling legal for everyone including small businesses. Why should the benefits of gambling go to only the few wealthy enough to own a casino?
Let the guy who owns the coin laundry have slots and make a little extra income off the people using his service. Or maybe the car wash owners or the donut shop owners?
We did not vote for land-based gambling but since the casino industry keeps getting more and more legal loopholes added, why not just kick the door open all the way?
Save the flood plains for agriculture, wildlife and nature.

[Land Based]

Cujo wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree completely.
Using flood plains for development merely because they are the only ground still available and reasonable in cost is very myopic at best. And it reeks of exploiting the environment and our precious natural resources.
Having casinos only in proximity to our rivers is also quite illusory now that the "Riverboats" we voted on were all docked for safety and practical reasons.
Why not be even more practical and just allow the casinos to be anywhere?
I like the idea someone had in the other forum, make gambling legal for everyone including small businesses. Why should the benefits of gambling go to only the few wealthy enough to own a casino?
Let the guy who owns the coin laundry have slots and make a little extra income off the people using his service. Or maybe the car wash owners or the donut shop owners?
We did not vote for land-based gambling but since the casino industry keeps getting more and more legal loopholes added, why not just kick the door open all the way?
Save the flood plains for agriculture, wildlife and nature.

Move this Casino Project to Jamestown Mall. Fully serves two concerns. Good use of a large empty low tax paying building, great re-use of the existing structure. Infrastructure already in place.

[Dealer]

Land Based wrote:

<quoted text>
Move this Casino Project to Jamestown Mall. Fully serves two concerns. Good use of a large empty low tax paying building, great re-use of the existing structure. Infrastructure already in place.

I like that idea!

[truth]

Any casino that takes business away from Pinnacle Ent. has my vote. I will gamble there. Pinnace can suck off.

[Land Based]

Land Based wrote:

<quoted text>
Move this Casino Project to Jamestown Mall. Fully serves two concerns. Good use of a large empty low tax paying building, great re-use of the existing structure. Infrastructure already in place.

And, it sits between the two Great Rivers, both the Missouri and the Mississippi, well away from the flood plains and fly ways. Not to mention, it does border a tributary of the Missouri River, Coldwater Creek runs along one of its boundries.

[Hey wait]

Land Based wrote:

<quoted text>
And, it sits between the two Great Rivers, both the Missouri and the Mississippi, well away from the flood plains and fly ways. Not to mention, it does border a tributary of the Missouri River, Coldwater Creek runs along one of its boundries.

Hey wait!
Didn't the French that settled the Florissant Valley canoe up Coldwater Creek to get to the place where they finally settled over by Old Town?
Dang! That IS a tributary if I ever saw one. And if you saw the big Coldwater Creek Flood a while back you would know that it is really a river. Heck Coldwater is as big as some of the "rivers" down south that you can take a float trip on.
I think we are onto something!
Let's just change the maps and signs, "Coldwater River"... I LIKE IT!!
Then Jamestown would be the perfect place for the Casino!!!!!

Hello, Mr. Lowery and Mr. Dooley!!!

[Cato]

Finally we have the solution to school funding problems. Just look at the great success the other boats have brought us.

[Mark]

I realize it is necessary for some to vent. I am also thankful that in the area of zoning matters there are laws in place that guide those authorities who are required to make decisions. If this area of Spanish Lake was so valuable or needed why didn’t the conservation Department (who is a soul separate entity from the state) purchase the property? Why hasn’t someone else previously approach the old farmer’s to purchase this property for a community supported and worthy project? Who, from those who oppose, have introduced alternatives, acceptable use, that would generate needed property tax income?
When someone uses the reason’s of -- flood area, nature, wildlife etc. to block a new development, don’t they realize that although these are personal emotional reasons, that they are not viable ones. Case in point—Chesterfield Valley. For those who have not been there in a year or two, I suggest you check it out. When you go to visit the valley, take along the picture from the Post-Dispatch paper 1993, showing the sea of floodwater water covering the entire area.“Who in their right mind”, would ever think someday in the future hundreds of millions of dollars could ever be spent in that area. The residents of that area organized and complained protested against development as well. But look at it today, and as far as the school district, they certainly appreciate the real estate property tax collected from that area. One of the main reasons the residential property tax rate is much lower than ours.
The state law, allowing gambling boats is, in part, tied to navigable waterways, such as our rivers, for a purpose. Coldwater Creek does not conform to navigable. If this development is successful and achieves all authorities procedures it will NOT solve ALL Hazelwood school districts funding problems, but it could help with the residential real estate property tax rate being lowered. Mark

[Come Again]

Mark wrote:

I realize it is necessary for some to vent. I am also thankful that in the area of zoning matters there are laws in place that guide those authorities who are required to make decisions. If this area of Spanish Lake was so valuable or needed why didn’t the conservation Department (who is a soul separate entity from the state) purchase the property? Why hasn’t someone else previously approach the old farmer’s to purchase this property for a community supported and worthy project? Who, from those who oppose, have introduced alternatives, acceptable use, that would generate needed property tax income?
When someone uses the reason’s of -- flood area, nature, wildlife etc. to block a new development, don’t they realize that although these are personal emotional reasons, that they are not viable ones. Case in point—Chesterfield Valley. For those who have not been there in a year or two, I suggest you check it out. When you go to visit the valley, take along the picture from the Post-Dispatch paper 1993, showing the sea of floodwater water covering the entire area.“Who in their right mind”, would ever think someday in the future hundreds of millions of dollars could ever be spent in that area. The residents of that area organized and complained protested against development as well....Mark

Wow, you are really focused on one side of things.

MARK: "If this area of Spanish Lake was so valuable or needed why didn’t the conservation Department"

Well gee why didn't 'developers' do something with it before now?
Also, the conservation department does not buy JUST ANY private land it deems as important to remain undeveloped. They do not have the money or means to do such things and besides a lot of people would be screaming "communism" if they did.

MARK: "When someone uses the reason’s of -- flood area, nature, wildlife etc. to block a new development, don’t they realize that although these are personal emotional reasons, that they are not viable ones."

As Ronald Reagan once said, "Well there you go again!"

Why is it "emotional" to see the value of green space and flood plains and other natural features that are critical to the biological diversity and health of the environment?

"reasons, that they are not viable ones"?! Really?

Actually they are quite viable.
The National Ozark Scenic Riverways is the result of people realizing the environmental value of that region and the need to protect it from development.

There are numerous other examples. Did you see the Ken Burns series on the National Parks? Many times important natural areas were very close to being exploited until someone took the initiative to stop that exploitation.

Money usually wins out unless other powers intercede. If Teddy Roosevelt were alive and president right now I think it would only take a few letters from some concerned citizens to get him to use the power of the federal government to stop this proposed development.

The Monarch Levee and the Chesterfield Valley are HIGHLY questionable development. Some argue it is pure folly and the flood of 1993 provides strong support for that view.

You point at it like it is some sort of "complete" success. But there are still numerous issues with that development and it is not even close to the confluence of the two largest rivers in the nation.

Developing the flood plain at the confluence is nothing more than exploiting dwindling natural resources and it is folly pure and simple. You may not see it that way but then people can be blinded by the visions of dollar signs.

You take me back sometimes with the things you post. It seems clear you want to sound "thoughtful" and at times you do post things that show a fair amount of understanding and reflection. But often it is quite clear your depth of understanding quite shallow and your focus is quite narrow.

[outofit]

Did anyone here go to the council meeting/s in question? Did anyone here write in or phone in or voice their opinion in any form to people that actually had something to do with the vote? Hmm?? HMMMM????