Linn County Casino Group Calls for Removal of 'False and Misleading' TV Ad on Land Deal

A campaign supporting a new casino in Linn County is calling for the removal of an ad due to "false and misleading" information about a deal to locate the proposed casino on city-owned land in Cedar Rapids.

Vote Yes Linn County, which supports the casino, is critical of a new television ad called "This Deal" claims the city is giving casino investors land and the public may never see a dime.

"Our campaign insists the Just Say No casino group’s commercial be pulled immediately.  It is loaded with false and misleading information," Vote Yes spokeswoman Marcia Rogers said in an email.

Read more:

Linn County Casino Vote: Marion Economic Development Co. Says Casino Will Help Local Economy

Marion Leaders Won't Take Official Position on Linn County Casino

Linn County Casino Vote Set for March 5

A statement from Vote Yes says the Cedar Rapids Development Group will not pay any more or any less than any third party purchaser would pay for this land, and they aren't requesting tax incentives.

The City owned property would be made available by Competitive Proposal. If the area identified for the Casino is designated as a viable business corridor or historic district area, the commercial properties would be appraised and available for sale by Competitive Proposal at the then current appraised value.

If the area identified for the Casino is not designated as a viable business corridor or historic district area, for the City to dispose of property in the 100 year flood plain for development the City must repay Housing & Urban Development (HUD) all the federal funds used to acquire the properties in order to remove the federal interest. Therefore the properties would be available for sale by Competitive Proposal at the value the program paid to acquire the properties. This would include all administrative costs in addition to the acquisition and demolition costs.

Just Say No Casino spokesman Sam Roecker responded, "Our ad simply asks if taxpayers will see a dime from the sale of this land and raises other serious concerns about the non-profit agreement."

"I would be surprised if there were a competitive bid for this land," Roecker said in an email. "The Gray-led group hasn’t faced a competitive bid at any point in the process. They didn’t have to bid for the one-sided agreement they struck with the non-profit. The non-profit, which Gray created, didn’t have to bid for exclusivity from the city or the county. They simply granted that privilege before learning any of the details of the plan. If there is a competitive bid process, I think Mr. Gray might attract some other bidders."