Riverboat Casinos--why?

Factual Questions
1

While enjoying a fine (and profitable) night of gaming last night at Caesar’s Indiana, someone made a comment about our “1900-foot cruise down the mighty Ohio”. This made me wonder–why does the state of Indiana require casinos to be on riverboats? (Illinois had the same rule until recently, and other states may as well.)

It isn’t as if the boat is going out to international waters or anything. I could think of a few possible reasons for the rule:

–If it’s a boat, then it has some attraction aside from gambling. That would be understandable, if it did, but you can’t even go outside onto the deck. In fact, I wasn’t aware that we were moving at all. Nobody cares that it’s a boat, and anyone who came for the boat ride should demand a refund.

–Limited access. You can only get on the boat for half an hour every two. The problem is that you can only get off the boat at that time, as well. (See below)

–Barrier to entry. Requiring that a casino be on a riverboat limits the number of parties with the will and capital to open a casino in your state. It seems to me that there would be easier ways to go about that, though.

–Requiring boats to be on the river in these states puts them up against the state line, so that Indiana can draw in Kentucky dollars. This makes sense, but again, it seems like there would be easier ways.

I can think of a few drawbacks to the casino being on a boat. For one thing, it costs more to build and maintain a boat than a similar land-based structure. Since it would attract, IMO, exactly the same number of people, that money could go into promotions, better rules/payouts, more amenities, or even some good old-fashioned bribes to state officials. For another thing, you can’t leave the casino while the boat is out cruising–certainly a good thing for the casino, but not really for the state.

Does anyone know the real reason?

Dr. J

2

This isn’t exactly an answer, just how it’s done here in Mississippi. We have “riverboats” here. Actually, some could move if they had to. Most are built on big barges and docked in small lagoons full of water and on anchoring stilts. They don’t move. Exception: On the gulf coast, they are required to be moveable, in case Mom Nature decides to toss another Andrew or Camille at us. (shudder)

Not sure why they are reqired to be actual boats up there, but down here they are also required to have X million in landside development as well, so they don’t just wander off…

3

'Cause if it’s out in the middle of the river, it’s not on city property. I don’t remember why that’s neccessary, but it is. They’re on boats in Louisiana too.

4

[RANT]
I refer you to the C-SPAN channel in your area where you can observe local lawmaking in real time. If you see or hear anything that makes sense, please let us know.
[/RANT]

Matter of fact, I watched a program about that very subject a few years ago, but since I will only get to Ohio if a Tsunami carries me there, I didn’t pay any attention to it. The bit I recall had some anti-gambling governor trying to clean up Kentucky, pissing and moaning about the corruption in Indiana.

Call your legislator and ask his office clerk “Whazzzzup”? Better yet, send me the money you made and I’ll find out for you.

5

It’s entirely a voter gimmick.

  1. Limiting the boats to the river will “keep the corruption from spreading and turning every 11-year old girl in the city into a crack whore”.

  2. Most of these cities have a run-down riverfront area - you know, the kind of place featuring Labrador-sized rats, trans-sexual hookers, '73 Cadillac Fleetwoods sprouting MAC-10’s, etc. The Casinos offer to pump millions of bribery dollars into the area to “rejuvinate” it and put up a mini-mall with a Starbucks, Barnes & Noble, Pottery Barn, Baby Gap, etc.

  3. If the city ever had any claim to a wild-West past, the riverboat invokes romantic images of wealthy plantation owners and gentlemen gamblers in seersucker suits playing on majestic riverboat deck and drinking mint juleps (I used this phrase twice today now!)

  4. Many cities have an extemely corrupt river port authority, which of course just loves to be in a position to skim from the casinos.

  5. In theory, if the voters ever did change their minds, the boats could “easily be re-located out of the state so no more voters are harmed”.

  6. It’s easy to limit the number of casinos by falling back on river transportation-related issues. (“We can’t barge any coal through this winter because there are too many riverboats. Oh well, we can just sit in the dark and await death.”)

Although my post is somewhat sarcastic, I actually do approve of gambling. Just not the way in which the riverboat gambling issue is handled.

6

For some Indiana legislation go to the following address:

http://www.state.in.us/legislative/ic/code/title4/ar33/ch6.html
Overall it looks like riverboat gambling depends on state law which can be determined by local votes. For example, the state of Mississippi has a law that allows an unlimited number of casinos, but those casinos better not land in DeSoto County where local voters turned 'em down.
In Georgia there are three ships that have gambling, but those ships pull away from the docks and sail more than 3 miles out (Georgia definition of international waters)on “trips to nowhere.”
The short answer is that there is no short answer here. Like liquor laws and firearms laws you have a crazy quilt of local and state legislation that varies by geography.

7

Missouri recently approved “Boats and Moats” which allowed gambling on “riverboats” even if they aren’t on a river, provided that the boat was surrounded by water of some kind. So, some casino operators just dug a moat around their boat filled it with water and VOILA! Riverboat gambling in the middle of Missouri.

8

These are most common on the Mississippi river. Either state or federal law prohibits gambling in certain areas, this does not apply on rivers, that is an unorthodox thought if you think about when those laws were made, back then they probably didn’t have riverboats(who knows) and the idea would never have to be worried about really.

And no-one really cares anymore, and the people who do don’t want to go through all the legal hassle to get that banned, either don’t have the money, or don’t care enough, or realize that it won’t really do any good.

I remember when I lived in St. Louis there were always a few gambling riverboats in the Mississippi.

9

The explanation that I had heard, was that certain major rivers, such as the Ohio and the mighty Missourissippi, were considered “national thoroughfares” or some such, and, as such, fell under Federal laws, rather than State. Hence, since there is no federal law against gambling, a craft on one of these rivers can legally offer it.

Note that this answer does not seem to make sense in context of the previous posts which cited particular laws, but it still sounds like a good idea.

10

I’m afraid I don’t think that answer is correct. From what I know of thr Corp of E., each state does control all of the laws and regulations involving the conduct of persons and corporations on the river, although they may not be able to control certain actions taken by the Feds w.r.t. flood control, levees, dredging, barge commerce, etc. If a river is also a state boundary, then each state controls half of the channel.

This came to a sad and amusing head here in KC. For some reason completely unknown to me, the Kansas A.G. made a buttheaded statement once that if any Missouri riverboat ever crossed the center of the channel, the boat would be confiscated and the operators brought up on charges. When they were asked if this applied even to an emergency landing on the Kansas side, the A.G. replied “absolutely”. Afterwards, they issued a small apology, saying that they wouldn’t prosecute in the case of an emergency landing or accidental crossover into Kansas water, so long as all gambling stopped immediately. But they would still confiscate the boats.

11

These seem to be the correct answers. Here in Louisiana there wasn’t enough popular support to pass a bill allowing land bases casinos, but making it Riverboats allowed the bill to squeak past the voters and the legislators. For some people land casinos are “evil”, but riverboats are “romantic.”

12

Here in Missouri it was sold as a tourism gimmick. We do love our rivers, and that prospect of Gaylord Ravenol and Lilli Langtree cruising the showboat up the Mississippi (fleecing the tourists)sounded a lot better to the voters than “let’s stick a big box on a barge so Grandma can blow her Social Security check.”

13

My two cents.

This is just a curious observation on the subject, and pretty much all I know about it.

A riverboat casino has to carry a full crew. In other words, it has to be able to actually set sail if necessary.

The only reason I know this, is because a friend of mine is a Captain on a riverboat that has never left the dock.

14

Not all casinos in Louisiana are boat-based–the new Harrah’s in New Orleans is on land. (Fairly nice casino, too.)

Dr. J

15

Well what about that Harrah’s in downtown New Orleans that was so kind as to fund my last trip to the Big Easy? But then again, New Orleans law makes United States law look like Chutes and Ladders.

16

Boy, that was a pretty egregious double post. I’m ashamed of myself. That’ll teach me to try to get some work done.

17
      • I live in the St Louis area, so a lot of this I’ve heard or read as local stories:
  • The reason for the proliferation of riverboat casinos on the Mississippi in the last few years has to do with a federal tax law: there’s some kind of dodge that a boat-based business can get away with, that a land-based business has to pay. Don’t recall what it is exactly, but that’s it. That’s the reason. (I wanna say that employees on boats journeying in international waters are exempt from federal income taxes; that sounds right, but I’m not sure. The Mississippi river is considered international waters for the purpose of this law, even though Chinese destroyers can’t wander around in it)
  • The “boats in moats” issue is also a typical legal dodge: They ran out of prime space to put casinos in the St Louis riverfront area (the casino investors want easy access to interstate highways and the light-rail system, so just anywhere on the river won’t do), so they approved a bill to allow “boats in moats”. That is (for example) a 200 x 50 foot barge drawing four feet, floating in a 204 x 64 foot pool 4.5 feet deep (the law actually said the minimum of water that a barge had to have around it, and it wasn’t much- 6 inches or something like that) and the pool has to be freely connected with the river by a pipe. An unconstricted pipe of no less that 18 inches diameter, lest you think that there’s some sort of softening of standards going on here, Bub. St Charles was the area where one of these was planned last I heard -the only area, really-, but I’ve probably lost count. It might be there by now. -There were two competing casinos there already; on the Missouri river, just north of interstate 70: right next to each other. - Some investor group asked about the legality of building a “boat-in-moat” on high ground, and then pumping in water, to escape the flooding problem of actually being on the river. That proposal was rejected as not being legal.
  • The casino operators don’t like needing to be on the river either; to hell with romanticism. Actually going out on the river is the largest risk the boats take, and most gamblers either don’t like it, or don’t care. Recent years have seen a lot of floodng, limiting operations even for boats that stay dockside. During bad floods, they can’t provide customer access and have to shut down until the water recedes. The laws used to require all the boats to cruise regularly whenever possible, but the operators pointed out that cruising endangered the boats, the pasengers and other river traffic, so that part of the law got dropped. (When the water or other traffic was high, the boats were given the option to stay home or go out. A couple of the smaller ones still do go out whenever they can - the Alton Belle, for one.) Then they used to have “boarding times” when they were docked; you had to get on during 15 minutes every two hours, or you had to wait another two hours - this was part of pretending that if the boat was really cruising, that would be the only time you could get on. Then some time back, I heard they got rid of that rule too and now you can walk on anytime you want.
  • Another bone of contention was that originally, both Mo and Ill charged their respective casinos $2.00 for each passenger that boarded the boats. Missouri dropped their charge but Illinois didn’t, so some issues are dependent on the state where the boat operates from.
  • Now a few have built or are building hotel/restaurant developments. Luxury hotels, mind you, not Motel-6 kind of stuff. Problem is, for customer convenience they want the hotel right next to the casino, which sits right on the normal water level of the river, which floods occasionally. Hmmmmm . . . . - MC