|
Though 35,000 permanent jobs were created and properp,.,
<br />values around thc boardwalk have risen, much of the cin,
<br />remains depressed and crime has risen significantly. The city
<br />does, however, boast some redevelopment successes. Nev`,
<br />Jersey's Casino Reinvestment Act diverts t.25 percent of gross
<br />receipts from gamin]ins to thc Housing Authorin., and Urban
<br />Redevelopment Agency of Atlantic Ciu'. This fund, along with
<br />a state-managed mortgage program that offers below-market
<br />interest rates, has helped subsidize the redevelopment of thc
<br />Northeast Inlet area. The previously blighted portion of the ciD'
<br />is now an affordable, attractive neighborhood.
<br /> /',-lost land-based casinos, with the exception of Atlantic City
<br />and many towns in the state of Nevada, have sprouted up in small,
<br />historic boom towns. Deadwood, South Dakota, legalized gambling
<br />in an ef£or~ to preser~,e its histon'. Once a sleep),, old mining town,
<br />Deadwood now brings in $15 million yearly in tax revenues and
<br />licensing fees~ most of which is reinvested in preservation efforts.
<br />Small businesses not related to gaming, however, have suffered. No
<br />longer able to afford escalating property valt,es, the)' have sold their
<br />property to casino developers.
<br /> Deadwood legalized gambling in the fall of 1989. Approxi-
<br />mately 80 casinos later, it has a new comprehensive plan and a
<br />totally revised ordinance. Deadwood's old ordinance had five
<br />simple zoning districts: pub}lc use, residential, park/forest,
<br />commercial, and historic, explainable in 40 pages. But to
<br />accommodate gaming and protect vulnerable ttistoric structures
<br />and local commercial interests, the city nov,, has nine use
<br />districts, four of which are commercial. One permits no
<br />gambling facilities and is dedicated to local commerce. The new
<br />ordinance also reflects the elevated importance of historic and
<br />environmental preservation. Provisions for historic and environ-
<br />mental overlays can apply to all nine of Deadwood's new land-
<br />use districts (agricultural, park/forest, residential, mu}tifami]v
<br />residential, commercial, commercial enterprise, commercial
<br />highway, planned business, and public usc).
<br /> Parking has posed some unique problems in Deadwood.
<br />Because the fragile hillside landscape is erosion-prone, there is
<br />little available space for parking. To make room, developers
<br />began buying property with historic structures and applying for
<br />demolition permits. For now, establishments that fall within the
<br />boundaries of Deadwood's historic overlay zone arc not required
<br />to provide offosrreet parking. The new ordinance also provides
<br />for parking deferral as well as for parking reduction for elderly
<br />housing in order to reduce total parking demand. Remote
<br />parking and shuttle services have also been used.
<br /> Except in Nevada, the data on traffic characteristics for
<br />casinos lag far behind their proliferation. Moreover, because of
<br />the concentration of facilities in Las Vegas, the Nevada data
<br />may not be full)' applicable elsewhere. That said, the table
<br />on the front page, from the May 1992 issue of/T£journa~
<br />offers trip and site characteristics for hotel-casinos in Las Vegas.
<br />In the journal article, "Trip Generation Rates for Las Vegas
<br />Area Hotel-Casinos," Kenneth W. Ackert and Robert C. Hosea
<br />Iii offer an explicit methodoloD, for determining trip genera-
<br />tion. They studied the correlation of three independent
<br />variables affecting counts of vehicles entering casino driveways:
<br />number of hotel rooms in the property, casino floor square
<br />footage, and average number of employees. Ackert and Hosea
<br />determined that the average number of employees seemed to
<br />correlate most strongly w/th the number of vehicle arrivais. But
<br />the), caution that it is often difficult for developers to predict
<br />this variable before a final plan including the other t',vo variables
<br />has been approved. The), recommend further stud), of the
<br />
<br />Ackert. Kenneth W., and. Hosea III, Robert C., "Trip Generation
<br /> Rates for l-as Vegas Area Hotel-C. asino~," ITEJournaL May 1992.
<br />Cherwony, Walter, and Orth, Richard H., ~Casino Bus Management
<br /> Study," Annual Meeting Compendium of Technical Papers from
<br /> ITE, August 1984.
<br />Craig, Christopher, Ginsburg, Dan, and Goldberg, David, 1993 State
<br /> Gaming Iuue~. Center for State Policy Research, 1993.
<br />Jurasin, Robert P., Mandle, Peter B., and Whidock, Edward M.,
<br /> "Transportation Planning Issues--Hotels/Casino District--Atlantic
<br /> Cit'),," Annual Meeting Compendium of Technical Papers from
<br /> ITE, August 1984.
<br />Kraft, Walter H., and Jerome, lan, "Transportation Engineers for
<br /> Casinos--Atlantic City, New Jersey," Annual Meeting Compen-
<br />" dium of Technical Papers from ITE, August 1984.
<br />
<br />LD~rature
<br />Bergman, David, "Deadwood, S.D., Aims for High Rollers," PAS
<br /> Memo, May 1991.
<br />Gregory, Michelle, "Communities Bet Their Bottom Dollar," Public
<br /> Invesvment News, September 1992.
<br />Lee, Anita, "Mississippi Stakes All on Riverboat Gambling," ]~lanning,
<br /> December 1993.
<br />McQulllan, Eugene, The Law of Municiflal Corporatio~u, Wilmette, IlL:
<br /> Callaghan & Company, 1988.
<br />Morris, Ma .rya, "Plan Ahead for Gambling," PASMemo, June 1993.
<br />~ylvester, Kathteen, ~Indians Bee on the Lure of Dice," Governing, July
<br /> 1993.
<br />Williams, Krisrine, "Coordinating Jurisdiction on Indian Resen'a-
<br /> tions," Planning &Zoning News, October 1992.
<br />
<br />relationship between number of employees and vehicle arrivals
<br />in light of seasonal variations, hotel occupancy rates, and the
<br />overall traffic volume of the varying zoning districts within
<br />which casinos ina), be located.
<br />
<br />Gaming on Indian Land
<br />Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the casino craze has
<br />been its impact on Indian nations and their surrounding -
<br />communities. In the last five years, 19 states, 78 tribes, and
<br />dozens of local governments have grappled with issues of
<br />jurisdiction, taxation, and the impacts of gambling on Indian-
<br />owned land. Man), non-Indian officials claim that it all started
<br />with a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the
<br />right of California's Cabazon Band of Mission Indians to
<br />operate gaming facilities on their resen'ation. The ruling
<br />rejected attempts by the state and Riverside Count3., to regulate
<br />card games and bingo on the reservation.
<br /> "The ruling expressly recognized the right of Native Ameri-
<br />cans to conduct gambling in stares where any kind of gaming is
<br />legal and upheld the broad principle of lndian sovereignty,"
<br />noted Gvverni,g magazine in its Jul), 1993 issue. Tribal gaming
<br />skyrocketed Within a year of the decision. Congress then passed
<br />the 1988 Indian Gaming and Regulatory Act, which defines
<br />three classes of ga~bling on Indian-owned land under varying
<br />conditions:
<br /> Class I--includes traditional Indian social games and falls
<br />completely under tribal control.
<br /> Class//--includes bingo and other "non-banking" card
<br />games (such as poker).
<br /> Class llI--(big money) includes all banking card games
<br />(such as blackjack), slot machines, and lotteries.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|