The Virginian-Pilot
©
NORFOLK
Although they acknowledge it's a long shot, city officials have decided to ask the General Assembly for permission to bring riverboat gambling to the downtown waterfront.
With little debate, the City Council agreed on Tuesday to make riverboat gambling one its key legislative requests to Gov. Bob McDonnell and the General Assembly.
Councilman Paul R. Riddick, who for years has been urging the council to push the issue, said he doesn't yet have a sponsor for the bill and that the General Assembly might not like the idea.
"All we can do is give it our best shot," he said.
City officials said it will be the fourth time they have asked permission to have riverboat gambling, but the first in more than a decade.
The city's initial effort came in 1994, when Del. Jerrauld Jones, D-Norfolk, sponsored a bill supported by House Speaker Thomas W. Moss, D-Norfolk, and Del. Eric Cantor, R-Richmond, now a prominent congressman. The bill generated much opposition from legislators from outside Hampton Roads and failed 55-42.
Similar bills the following two years also were defeated. A 1995 bill never made it out of committee. In 1996, the House voted 69-28 against riverboat gambling.
As a delegate from Virginia Beach, McDonnell twice voted against riverboat gambling.
Six states have legalized riverboat gambling, but none since 1993.
In Virginia, rural legislators, as well as many from suburban Richmond and Northern Virginia, combined to defeat the three Norfolk proposals. Christian leaders, including many African American ministers, were in opposition.
Riddick is now gambling that more than a decade later, attitudes have changed.
He said Norfolk will propose putting all state tax revenue from riverboat gambling into a "lock box" to be spent on transportation. It is a way to generate revenue without raising taxes, he said.
As proposed by the city, riverboats would depart from the Half Moone Cruise and Celebration Center cruise ship terminal and head into the harbor and perhaps the Chesapeake Bay for several hours or more.
Riddick said if it operated like riverboats in Joliet, Ill., dinners and shows would be offered in addition to gambling. Riverboats also would be allowed in other waterfront cities, including Virginia Beach, Hampton and Newport News.
Riddick called the potential tax revenue enormous. "You have so many people driving past us to gamble in Delaware and Atlantic City. We'd like for those people to spend their money here."
Mayor Paul Fraim acknowledged the legislation probably won't pass in the upcoming General Assembly session and maybe not the next but said that it's time to raise the issue. "This is going to be a multiyear process," he said.
Del. Paula Miller, D-Norfolk, said she is generally in favor of the concept. She said she has polled her constituents, and they said they would like options such as riverboat gambling. "Many of them have said they don't want to spend their tax dollars outside Virginia and want to bring tax dollars into Norfolk," she said.
Del. Kenny Alexander, D-Norfolk, said he is inclined to vote no. "I would be very surprised if the faith-based community would embrace riverboat gambling," he said. "I don't know that much has changed since the 1990s."
Alexander and Miller said they need to read the bill before making a final decision. Alexander said he worries that poor and middle-income residents, especially those prone to gambling addictions, will fall prey to gambling.
Riddick said the state already sponsors forms of gambling that can be much more destructive to the working poor. There is a state-sponsored lottery and a horse track in New Kent County with satellite betting parlors. He said riverboats generally charge admissions fees that would discourage all but the well-heeled.
"I'm concerned about the potential social ills, just like Kenny Alexander," he said. "I represent the same people.
"But this is not going to be like a casino, where people can just walk in. It's going to be a place that will attract people now spending their money elsewhere."

Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo

Gee, my comment about the..
editorial board's hypocrisy concerning their editorial of today (Friday, Nov. 19) must have really hit a nerve with the censors here. The Pilot's editorial board said today that just because tax revenues might be generated is no reason to allow riverboat gambling. They also stated that there is something wrong with investors actually (gasp) making money from their investments and risks in such ventures. This is from the bunch who lecture us that the state's monopoly on all liquor sales is a good thing because of the revenues they bring in. I don't recall any animus on their part about the state run Lottery. I guess pointing out their undeniable hypocrisy is something that just isn't allowed anymore. Hence their credit card shakedown...
Can our state Senators give the real reason
Silly comment of the day, "Alexander and Miller said they need to read the bill before making a final decision. Alexander said he worries that poor and middle-income residents,especially those prone to gambling addictions, will fall prey to gambling. Oh,kinda like the ones who spend $100 or more of their paychecks,retirement checks,their part time job money,their warefare checks in the lottery and lottery scratchers? You mean like the people who spend hundreds in church bingos and bingo halls? Ahhh those people, but the state loves those people. God bless our state government who do not have a clue about coming up ways to raise needed tax money and stand by silly out dated excuses not to have gambling on the water.
Gambling is evil
Gambling is evil and a waste of money. Please don't bring it here.
Chris33
Hey Chris33.... Its not your money nor your decision so DON'T worry how other people spend their money!!!!
Yes to the Referendum
I agree wholeheartedly with the folks mentioning holding a referendum and letting the people decide. Years ago the lottery kept getting shut out and I remember at least one representative from Northern VA who kept saying he didn't think the 'good people' of the Commonwealth wanted a lottery and therefore he wouldn't vote for it. He wouldn't vote for a referendum either but finally there were enough votes to allow for one and guess what?? The good people (and probably some bad ones)of the Commonwealth voted it in. It galls me that someone would keep me from having a say about something that affects us all. If the people vote against it I can live with that a whole lot better than not having a say and letting a few people choose.
Who needs permition?
Just have inter-net cafe riverboats that have "sweepstakes" on board.
Anything Riddick says or
Anything Riddick says or proposes, do the opposite. This has EPIC FAIL written all over it.
It ain't happenin' here ...
It ain't happenin' here ... there are plenty of places to go gamble if you want to. Go there. We don't need to spread gambling everywhere, for goodness sake. Let's remain a conservative state where folks can come to escape such behaviors, and the associated consequences.
Libs, you know you want to call me redneck, stupid, ignorant, inbred, and other nasty things. Not because of anything I said, of course. But just because, well, you always say that when you have no real input.
Ridick didn't care about
Ridick didn't care about jobs when he voted against allowing Lazy Dayz to stay open later.
But then again that was on 21st street, and we all know what he thinks about that part of Norfolk....
Trial basis
Typically I'm against any sort of gambling like this because of seeing so many families devastated by it, but I'd be willing to give it a two year trial and see what happens. IF there isn't an increase in crime, domestic disputes that can be tied to gambling and no loss in income from other forms of entertainment that are already established, then let it go on for five years and look at it again. If the state gets more income with little or no harm, then it will be a good deal for everyone.