http://www.savetheconfluence.org/?p=81 The Website of the Missouri Common Sense Coalition Sat, 24 Apr 2010 02:41:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 http://www.savetheconfluence.org/?p=81&cpage=1#comment-12 Lena Wed, 03 Mar 2010 01:34:34 +0000 http://www.savetheconfluence.org/?p=81#comment-12 Well said, Paul! You and I think alike. I have also said changing the law restricting the location of casinos would be a good solution. At least for this proposed development. I know this idea has been presented in the Common Sense Coalition. There are many avenues the Coalition is working to try to stop this developemnt. I think there is a concern that changing the law would take too long and this casino would move forward before the location restriction could be lifted. But maybe development can be delayed long enough to make this happen. Well said, Paul! You and I think alike. I have also said changing the law restricting the location of casinos would be a good solution. At least for this proposed development. I know this idea has been presented in the Common Sense Coalition. There are many avenues the Coalition is working to try to stop this developemnt. I think there is a concern that changing the law would take too long and this casino would move forward before the location restriction could be lifted. But maybe development can be delayed long enough to make this happen.

]]> http://www.savetheconfluence.org/?p=81&cpage=1#comment-11 Paul Peterson Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:27:28 +0000 http://www.savetheconfluence.org/?p=81#comment-11 Maybe the solution to the controversy surrounding the possibility of a new casino near the Columbia Riverbottom conservation area is as simple as lifting the restrictions on where casinos can be built. What if the Common Senses Coalition focused on the law that requires casinos to build on riverfront property? If casinos didn’t have to build on the river, I wonder if they would choose to build elsewhere. I suspect real estate might be cheaper at any number of places, such as a closed factory, than along a riverfront. Anyone who knows the Columbia Riverbottom area knows that you cannot stop the river from flooding, but you can divert the waters to prevent damage to surrounding homes. Maybe the solution to the casino issue is similar: stopping the casino might be similar to trying to stop the Mississippi from flooding, but give the casino somewhere else to go and it might be diverted from the residents of Spanish Lake. (source - http://casinoprp.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/environmentalists-for-casinos/) Maybe the solution to the controversy surrounding the possibility of a new casino near the Columbia Riverbottom conservation area is as simple as lifting the restrictions on where casinos can be built. What if the Common Senses Coalition focused on the law that requires casinos to build on riverfront property? If casinos didn’t have to build on the river, I wonder if they would choose to build elsewhere. I suspect real estate might be cheaper at any number of places, such as a closed factory, than along a riverfront. Anyone who knows the Columbia Riverbottom area knows that you cannot stop the river from flooding, but you can divert the waters to prevent damage to surrounding homes. Maybe the solution to the casino issue is similar: stopping the casino might be similar to trying to stop the Mississippi from flooding, but give the casino somewhere else to go and it might be diverted from the residents of Spanish Lake. (source – http://casinoprp.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/environmentalists-for-casinos/)

]]>