The Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission (IRGC) heard a mix of support and opposition on the Cedar Rapids casino proposal during a public meeting on Wednesday. The debate centers around the proposed $275 million Cedar Crossing Casino and Entertainment Center, slated for northwest Cedar Rapids. While local advocates urge approval, others voice concerns about the potential impact on existing state casinos.
A Divided Public Hearing
At the Kirkwood Center in Cedar Rapids, the gaming commission gathered to listen to public comments on the proposed casino. Representatives from local businesses, government officials, and the group behind the project, Peninsula Pacific Entertainment (P2E), strongly advocated for the casino, emphasizing its potential economic benefits. Cedar Rapids Mayor Tiffany O’Donnell voiced her support, stating that the proposal is highly popular among local residents. She referenced past gaming referendums in Linn County, which passed in favor of casinos in 2013 and 2021.
“We’re asking for a fair shot,” O’Donnell said. “What’s happening on the outside, it’s not us. I get to be the voice of the people who aren’t here.” Her plea for approval was echoed by business owners in the community, who see the project as a potential driver of growth for the local economy.
Concerns from Opponents
On the other hand, opponents of the project, including a vocal group called Iowans for Common Sense, argue that the state does not need more casinos. The group launched an advertising campaign earlier in November, citing a survey by UpONE Insights that found 66% of Iowans are opposed to expanding gambling in the state. They assert that additional casinos would only cannibalize revenue from existing venues, rather than bring new tourism or income.
Eric Bertch, representing Lost Island Themepark in Waterloo, spoke out against the proposed Cedar Rapids casino, arguing that it would negatively impact neighboring gaming facilities like the Isle Casino Hotel in Waterloo. According to Bertch, the new casino would harm the broader tourism economy, as it would redirect business from other attractions in the state.
“As Iowa business owners, we believe in competition,” Bertch said. “But we also believe in collaboration. There’s already a wide variety of attractions across the state, and adding another casino wouldn’t enhance the experience for tourists—it would duplicate efforts.”
Economic Impact Claims
Proponents of the casino, however, remain confident that it would provide a net positive impact for Iowa. A study commissioned by P2E contends that the Cedar Rapids casino would generate $80.2 million in new revenue for the state. While it acknowledges that existing casinos may experience a $27.8 million reduction in revenue, supporters argue that this is a manageable impact given the potential for new economic activity in the region.
The debate is further complicated by the political context. In 2022, Iowa’s legislature imposed a two-year moratorium on new gaming licenses, a measure that effectively blocked new casinos from opening. While Republican Rep. Bobby Kaufmann attempted to extend the moratorium in 2024, the measure did not pass. Kaufmann has said he plans to introduce another moratorium bill in 2025, but for now, the IRGC is free to approve new projects like the Cedar Crossing proposal.
What’s Next for the Cedar Rapids Casino?
For now, the IRGC has not made a decision on the Cedar Rapids casino proposal. The commission will continue to hear public comments and weigh the economic data presented by both sides. With no legal barriers to new casino projects in place, the commission’s decision could be a significant turning point for the state’s gaming industry.
As the debate continues, the proposed Cedar Crossing Casino remains at the center of a growing conversation about the future of gambling in Iowa. While advocates tout its potential to drive economic growth, opponents fear it will only hurt existing businesses and create unnecessary competition. The outcome of this debate will have a lasting impact on Iowa’s gaming landscape in the years to come.
Comments