Yesterday, the House Subcommittee reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of the bill proposed with the aim of granting two gambling licenses or to be more precise, allowance for establishment of two non-smoking casino venues was sought.
The members of the Subcommittee remained tight-lipped as to whether the majority of them are approving of the construction of the new venues or the proposal is likely to be rejected.
Rep. Guy Vander Linden (R-Oskaloosa) also seemed unwilling to comment on the so called House File 257. The bill requires the Iowa gambling officials to start a procedure concerning the licensing of two venues. The licenses in question are to be issued under the Iowa Clean Indoor Air Act.
For the time being, the above-mentioned Act allows smoking on casino floors.
People familiar with the state gambling affairs reassured local communities that the city of Cedar Rapids is likely to get authorities’ approval. Actually, back in 2014, regulatory bodies rejected the application for Cedar Rapids and pointed to the fact that the casino would have an adverse effect on the revenues of the already existing venues.
One of the co-sponsors of the bill, Rep. Ken Rizer, R-Cedar Rapids, said that the aim of the bill is to establish a new licensing category without making the Committee members choose “winners and losers” among the applicants for a casino license.
Expectedly, the proposal gathered proponents as well as opponents. Non-smokers and the casino employees supported the smoke-free casino floors, while casino owners were particularly unhappy with the bill.
Yet, most Iowa officials were convinced that the method that works best has to be chosen by local communities that should be given the chance of exploring all available options.
However, Riverside and Waterloo officials complained that their operations as well as the future investments will be affected in a negative manner. In response, the lobbyist of Ameristar said that those casinos that are afraid of becoming unprofitable are free to adopt the non-smoking approach.
Frank Chiodo, the Riverside casino lobbyist, said that casino executives “see this as a unique way of getting around the Racing and Gaming Commission’s ruling”.
Needless to say, there were a lot of lobbyists who were totally against the establishment of non-smoking faculties and to a certain extent, their worries were not groundless. The lobbyist for the Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, William Steward, said that the expansion of the gambling sector in the state of Iowa was actually a terrible idea and therefore, the bill should be prevented from passing.
