Casinos confine spending inside

Regarding Jim Cannon’s Jan. 12 letter “It’s time to pass casino referendum”: He calls me a former backer of the casino and goes on to mention that competition won’t hurt small business and calls the reasons unfounded.

As for the former backer claim, that can be explained. At that time, the city would not have been using taxpayer money to subsidize the casino and this time the City Council will not deny it is possible.

Cannon says that we should get real about it taking business away from other business. In 2003, people could smoke in bars and restaurants, but today the only place they can is in casinos, so Cannon may be stuck in 2003. I have tried to adjust to the times and reality.

Another reality is casinos are built to keep customers in, not for them to go out and spend money elsewhere. He then mentions the money coming from other casinos to finance the vote no campaign. Our group is called a coalition. That means people who have different views on why a casino isn’t needed all participate. There are small business owners as well as big who feel the casino will harm them, so it really shouldn’t surprise anyone they would back the vote no campaign.

The vote yes investors might spend $1 million to get this passed and the vote no coalition looks to anyone who shares our goal to help us fight this unneeded and, as of 2003, unwanted casino. I guess Cannon forgot the majority voted against it in the 2003 election he mentioned.

Frank King

Cedar Rapids


Like what you're reading?

We make it easy to stay connected:

to our email newsletters
Download our free apps

Give us feedback

Have you found an error or omission in our reporting? Tell us here.
Do you have a story idea we should look into? Tell us here.