Join our Mailing List!
Please click the link below to sign up for your community paper mailing list. Stay up to date with all the events going on in your community as well as the latest news.Sign Up Today!
Riverside, KCK may be in position to decide fate of casinos
By Michael Westblade
When Kansas City drafted its smoking ban, it included an exemption allowing casino gaming floors to dodge the ban until all casino gaming floors in Jackson, Platte and Clay counties in Missouri and Johnson and Wyandotte counties in Kansas come under the effect of a smoking ban.
With North Kansas City passing a smoking ban with the same language about exemption, the fate of the area’s gaming floors sits in the hands of the last two cities with casinos that have yet to consider a ban: Riverside, home of Argosy Casino, and the Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kan., home of 7th Street Casino.
Currently neither city has a smoking ban under discussion.
But, according to city officials in Kansas City and North Kansas City, the passage of smoking bans in Riverside and Wyandotte County that don’t exempt casino gaming floors would automatically end Kansas City’s and North Kansas City’s exemptions, and all the casinos in the area would be forced to go smoke free.
However, Kathy Rose, mayor of Riverside, said her city hasn’t even discussed a possible ban and probably won’t.
“We really haven’t even talked about it, and I don’t know if we will,” she said. “But I do know the businesses in Riverside have benefited because Kansas City has imposed a ban (on smoking).”
Alderman Mark Salyer also said there probably wouldn’t be any discussion on a ban.
“There has been no discussion in Riverside of a possible ban, nor do I see any possible discussion transpiring in the foreseeable future,” he said. “While I personally do not smoke and I find smoking offensive, I would not support a ban in any form. To me this is similar to gun control, and I do not support restrictions on personal liberties.”
When asked if Riverside might consider a ban if the unified government did, Rose said she didn’t know but stressed the importance of equal rules.
“We have to compete with Kansas,” she said. “I just think that it’s really important that it be a level playing field.”
Not surprisingly, Argosy Casino in Riverside is opposed to the possibility of a smoking ban. Eric Schippers, vice president for public affairs for Penn National Gaming, the parent company of Argosy Casino, said a smoking ban that affected the casino would hurt its profits considerably.
“A potential ban in Riverside would have a very negative impact on our business, based on smoking bans passing in other markets we operate in,” he said. “What happens is, given the competition in the marketplace, customers have a choice: drive to a neighboring jurisdiction which may not have a ban, not go to the casino at all or spend less time at the casino. Either way, it has a significant impact on revenue.”
Schippers said his company’s casinos have seen profit drops of up to 20 percent in areas where a smoking ban was enacted.
Although Riverside doesn’t plan to discuss the issue, the gears are already rolling in Wyandotte County.
Edwin Birch, public information officer for the unified government, said the unified government is researching the possibility of a smoking ban, but officials are still in the preliminary stages.
“Of course, when you look at what has taken place in other cities, it’s an issue we’ll have to look at head on,” he said. “But it’s not something we feel we’re under pressure to get done.”
A possible smoking ban, said Birch, is something the unified government’s residents have shown support for, but they’ve also shown support for certain exemptions.
In a survey compiled by the unified government in April, 63 percent of respondents favored a smoking ban and 42.9 percent favored an exemption for casino floors.
Staff writer Michael Westblade can be reached at 389-6636 or michaelwestblade@npgco.com.
printable version
e-mail this story
With North Kansas City passing a smoking ban with the same language about exemption, the fate of the area’s gaming floors sits in the hands of the last two cities with casinos that have yet to consider a ban: Riverside, home of Argosy Casino, and the Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kan., home of 7th Street Casino.
Currently neither city has a smoking ban under discussion.
But, according to city officials in Kansas City and North Kansas City, the passage of smoking bans in Riverside and Wyandotte County that don’t exempt casino gaming floors would automatically end Kansas City’s and North Kansas City’s exemptions, and all the casinos in the area would be forced to go smoke free.
However, Kathy Rose, mayor of Riverside, said her city hasn’t even discussed a possible ban and probably won’t.
“We really haven’t even talked about it, and I don’t know if we will,” she said. “But I do know the businesses in Riverside have benefited because Kansas City has imposed a ban (on smoking).”
Alderman Mark Salyer also said there probably wouldn’t be any discussion on a ban.
“There has been no discussion in Riverside of a possible ban, nor do I see any possible discussion transpiring in the foreseeable future,” he said. “While I personally do not smoke and I find smoking offensive, I would not support a ban in any form. To me this is similar to gun control, and I do not support restrictions on personal liberties.”
When asked if Riverside might consider a ban if the unified government did, Rose said she didn’t know but stressed the importance of equal rules.
“We have to compete with Kansas,” she said. “I just think that it’s really important that it be a level playing field.”
Not surprisingly, Argosy Casino in Riverside is opposed to the possibility of a smoking ban. Eric Schippers, vice president for public affairs for Penn National Gaming, the parent company of Argosy Casino, said a smoking ban that affected the casino would hurt its profits considerably.
“A potential ban in Riverside would have a very negative impact on our business, based on smoking bans passing in other markets we operate in,” he said. “What happens is, given the competition in the marketplace, customers have a choice: drive to a neighboring jurisdiction which may not have a ban, not go to the casino at all or spend less time at the casino. Either way, it has a significant impact on revenue.”
Schippers said his company’s casinos have seen profit drops of up to 20 percent in areas where a smoking ban was enacted.
Although Riverside doesn’t plan to discuss the issue, the gears are already rolling in Wyandotte County.
Edwin Birch, public information officer for the unified government, said the unified government is researching the possibility of a smoking ban, but officials are still in the preliminary stages.
“Of course, when you look at what has taken place in other cities, it’s an issue we’ll have to look at head on,” he said. “But it’s not something we feel we’re under pressure to get done.”
A possible smoking ban, said Birch, is something the unified government’s residents have shown support for, but they’ve also shown support for certain exemptions.
In a survey compiled by the unified government in April, 63 percent of respondents favored a smoking ban and 42.9 percent favored an exemption for casino floors.
Staff writer Michael Westblade can be reached at 389-6636 or michaelwestblade@npgco.com.
Comments on "Riverside, KCK may be in position to decide fate of casinos"
Comments are limited to 200 words or less.Helen wrote on Aug 3, 2008 6:18 AM:
" A possible smoking ban, said Birch, is something the unified government’s residents have shown support for, but they’ve also shown support for certain exemptions.
In a survey compiled by the unified government in April, 63 percent of respondents favored a smoking ban and 42.9 percent favored an exemption for casino floors.
This is survey is flawed and manipulated like most statistics. Ask how many UG residents even received this survey? Or how many residents who did receive the survey even completed it? That information on the sample size of course is not shared, and the true perspective on the numbers is skewed.
Business owners should have a say over who their customers are, smokers or non smokers. Business owners suffer from smoking bans in lost revenue.
If cigarettes are that dangerous why is the total sale of cigarettes not banned? The answer - govt would really, really miss the tax revenue.
How 'bout we ban politicians that push for bans on anything? "
In a survey compiled by the unified government in April, 63 percent of respondents favored a smoking ban and 42.9 percent favored an exemption for casino floors.
This is survey is flawed and manipulated like most statistics. Ask how many UG residents even received this survey? Or how many residents who did receive the survey even completed it? That information on the sample size of course is not shared, and the true perspective on the numbers is skewed.
Business owners should have a say over who their customers are, smokers or non smokers. Business owners suffer from smoking bans in lost revenue.
If cigarettes are that dangerous why is the total sale of cigarettes not banned? The answer - govt would really, really miss the tax revenue.
How 'bout we ban politicians that push for bans on anything? "
Thomas Laprade wrote on Aug 1, 2008 1:18 PM:
" Governments gone wild
The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation -
from sea to sea- has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed
threat of "second-hand" smoke.
Indeed, the bans themselves are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; a
cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized
throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local
government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved - the cancer of
unlimited government power.
The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom
menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal
indicates. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper
reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating
people about the potential danger and allowing them to make
their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force
people to make the "right" decision?
Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than
attempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the
tobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion. "
The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation -
from sea to sea- has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed
threat of "second-hand" smoke.
Indeed, the bans themselves are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; a
cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized
throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local
government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved - the cancer of
unlimited government power.
The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom
menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal
indicates. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper
reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating
people about the potential danger and allowing them to make
their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force
people to make the "right" decision?
Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than
attempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the
tobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion. "
Thomas Laprade wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:59 AM:
" It is clear that separation of smokers from non-smokers combined
with air exchange technology is a complete solution to this largely
artificial problem. All it takes is regulating authorities setting the
standards for indoor air quality on passive smoke, and the technology
does the rest. Such air quality standards are common in industrial
and environmental contexts. But, to date, no country in the world has
set them for smoking areas. It seems clear that the reasons are not
scientific, nor are they economic or technical: they are political.
The anti smoking agencies do not want safe standards that would still allow
people to smoke...they simply want a ban that will push smokers
outdoors like outcasts. "
with air exchange technology is a complete solution to this largely
artificial problem. All it takes is regulating authorities setting the
standards for indoor air quality on passive smoke, and the technology
does the rest. Such air quality standards are common in industrial
and environmental contexts. But, to date, no country in the world has
set them for smoking areas. It seems clear that the reasons are not
scientific, nor are they economic or technical: they are political.
The anti smoking agencies do not want safe standards that would still allow
people to smoke...they simply want a ban that will push smokers
outdoors like outcasts. "