Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 3 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Editorial: Do more casinos hinder existing ones?
Published Tuesday, June 30, 2009
While it is clear the state of Iowa relies heavily on revenue from casinos to make ends meet in state spending, the continued growth of them makes us Minnesotans near the border wonder:
Won’t having too many sort of dilute the market?
There already is the very successful Diamond Jo Casino on Interstate 35’s exit for Northwood. Now there are intentions to build another casino at I-35’s exit for Dows, just 55 miles down the freeway.
Iowa’s casinos draw people from other states or people passing through Iowa, such as truckers or convention-goers, and there are Iowans who visit them, too. But in the end there are only so many new markets to tap into, such as when the Northwood casino opened and attracted Minnesotans down the freeway.
Ultimately, the issue is up to Iowa, but the state’s leaders must be asking themselves if there is a point when more casinos only hinders the existing ones.
Indeed, if we are incorrect, we would like to know.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by scurvydog (anonymous) on June 30, 2009 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Another point to ponder is why are state-run casinos in Iowa exempt from the statewide smoking ban? That right there is a pretty good indicator that it isn't really about health, at least not in that case.
Indian casinos are of course exempt, because their land is considered sovereign and not under the laws of our land. This should NOT apply to a state run casino.
Of course, I am opposed to the government deciding who can smoke where. I think it should be up to the business and let the market dictate who stays open because of it.
For the record, I am a non-smoker and prefer my dining and recreation to be smoke-free. But I also prefer the choice to be mine, and not the government's.
Also for the record, I don't even go to casinos. But don't think this isn't my problem if I don't go there. The problem isn't that it's a casino, it's that the law is being applied unequally.
Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on June 30, 2009 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am a non smoker and glad that people can not smoke in bars and restaurants. Why should I have to sacrifice my health just to have a social evening?
Posted by scurvydog (anonymous) on July 1, 2009 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why should a privately owned business have to sacrifice their rights to accomodate you? Can't you dine somewhere else where the owner does not allow smoking? There were plenty of restaurants that did that before the ban.
On that note - that wasn't even the main point of my post. My point was why is the law not being applied to state-run casinos? Why can they allow smoking and other places can't?
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
The Tribune encourages healthy, respectful dialogue in the spirit of community enlightenment. It's OK to disagree, but be courteous and civil. Name-calling, vulgarity and claims of criminality are subject to removal.
(Requires free registration.)