A key legal fight is brewing over the future of the $275 million Cedar Crossing Casino & Entertainment Center in Cedar Rapids. A court will hear arguments on May 7, as operators of Washington County’s Riverside Casino attempt to block the project’s license.
Good to know
- Cedar Crossing developers have already invested over $20 million in planning and design.
- The casino project includes an 8 percent revenue share for nonprofit groups.
- A judge previously ruled the lawsuit could proceed but did not halt the license.
At the heart of the case is a 2021 Linn County vote—Public Measure G—which allowed gambling to continue in the county. Riverside, operated by Elite Casino Resorts, says voters were misled by the wording of the ballot. It claims the language suggested gambling was already happening in Linn County, even though no casino had been built or licensed.
Lawyers for Riverside argue that the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission had no legal basis to issue a license under a flawed referendum. They also claim that the Cedar Rapids casino could siphon off millions in revenue, affecting jobs and charitable funding tied to Riverside’s business.
Supporters of the Cedar Crossing project strongly disagree. The Linn County Gaming Association and Peninsula Pacific Entertainment, the developer, argue the lawsuit has nothing to do with legal procedure and everything to do with market competition. “Petitioners’ claimed injury from this action is nothing more than a competitive disadvantage,” their filing states.
Mount Pleasant will host the court hearing to ensure a neutral setting. Although the judge declined to freeze the license, he noted that Riverside’s argument had a “reasonable likelihood of success” regarding the wording of the ballot.
The 2021 vote asked whether gambling “may continue,” referencing an earlier vote from 2013. Riverside says that created confusion, while Cedar Rapids officials argue the ballot language came directly from state guidelines and followed established procedure.
The Linn County Attorney’s Office backed the measure, saying it acted as a follow-up to the earlier referendum. Meanwhile, developers point out that none of the 420 public comments to the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission mentioned any confusion about the language. The project had been approved by the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission (IRGC) earlier this year.
Riverside insists it has standing to sue, citing potential losses in employment and community contributions. Despite the legal action, work on Cedar Crossing is progressing. In February, developers broke ground, and the Cedar Rapids City Council recently approved a zoning change to help guide development.
Developers committed to a $50 million minimum property value, which would generate an estimated $2 million annually in property taxes. They also pledged 8 percent of net revenue to nonprofit causes.
Judge Michael Schilling, who will decide the case, has stated the ongoing construction will not affect the court’s judgment. “Nor is a decision to forge ahead with construction a defense to a defective ballot measure,” he said in a March ruling.
The post Uncertainty Surrounds Cedar Crossing Casino Ahead of May Court Date appeared first on iGaming.org.