Casino thud leaves big questions

The plan was thorough, impressive. Backed by about 200 investors. Elected leadership of the city and county eagerly endorsed it. Cedar Rapids and Linn County voters wanted it, to the tune of 61 percent approval in a referendum.

But in the end, status quo won. Cedar Rapids won't be getting the proposed Cedar Crossing Casino or another casino any time soon.

The Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission rejected the proposal 4-1 on Thursday. These commissioners, as previous commissioners consistently have done, couldn't bring themselves to ignore independent market studies projecting that a Cedar Rapids casino would take too much business from nearby casinos, especially in Riverside. Throughout the history of gambling in Iowa, the commission routinely has done what it deemed best to protect the gaming industry as a whole. Thus, two years and millions of dollars in preparatory work by the Steve Gray and Drew Skogman-led investor group went for naught.

As much pain as the decision surely brought to the investors and their supporters, the intense attention on this bid to bring a casino to the state's second-largest city also shined the brightest spotlight yet on the state's gambling license policy. A policy that does not allow free-market competition. A policy that controls license approval with the aim to keep all casinos generating profits that bring a steady flow of revenue for state coffers.

Several questions deserve review by state policymakers: Does the commission's control unduly sacrifice well-crafted, well-supported projects such as Cedar Crossing? Does it stifle competition to the point where the industry could be worse off in the long run because existing casinos become complacent?

And if the license process remains unchanged, isn't it at least time to reconsider the relative pittance that non-gambling counties get from the share of profits casinos are required to share with community charity organizations?

l Comments: editorial@thegazette.com or (319) 398-8262