Least Amount of Lanes Connecting Two States

[New to Seattle]

This came up more than 20 years ago. Two reasons: The existing casinos on the east side of the river didn't want the competition, and Arkansas said at the time it would refuse to provide services to the west side.

What kind of services? Would they barricade the border to another state? Close down connecting roads? If it were profitable, the casinos could buy up some land and build a private road. Would Arkansas shut down all the roads to connect to an Arkansas-based private road, too?

Would they force Arkansas-side utilities not to serve casino areas? That would be unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce, so the US Congress would have to regulate it instead. I wouldn't expect them to be favorable to casinos, but would they affirm public utilities' right to play favorites? And couldn't Miss then provide its own utilities over the river? Heck, since the entire river flows through Miss territory at that point, couldn't Miss barricade the river to boats from Arkansas?

OK, that's getting a little fanciful, but it seems implausible that one state could try to cut off a legal business in another state without serious constitutional implications.

[SteveG1988]

This came up more than 20 years ago. Two reasons: The existing casinos on the east side of the river didn't want the competition, and Arkansas said at the time it would refuse to provide services to the west side.

What kind of services? Would they barricade the border to another state? Close down connecting roads? If it were profitable, the casinos could buy up some land and build a private road. Would Arkansas shut down all the roads to connect to an Arkansas-based private road, too?

Would they force Arkansas-side utilities not to serve casino areas? That would be unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce, so the US Congress would have to regulate it instead. I wouldn't expect them to be favorable to casinos, but would they affirm public utilities' right to play favorites? And couldn't Miss then provide its own utilities over the river? Heck, since the entire river flows through Miss territory at that point, couldn't Miss barricade the river to boats from Arkansas?

OK, that's getting a little fanciful, but it seems implausible that one state could try to cut off a legal business in another state without serious constitutional implications.

It has happened between DE and NJ.

I heard somewhere that a riverboat casino was planned down in salem county NJ, but since the DE state line is the NJ low tide line...it would be in violation of delaware law, even if they only had access from NJ. In 2008 BP wanted to build a natural gas terminal near Deepwater NJ...Delaware was able to block it due to "Enviromental Concerns" aka they did not want the dredge material to get into DE...Delaware has refineries in it, some along the chesapeake canal... I wonder if that had anything to do with it.

[hbelkins]

^^^

Sounds like Kentucky's reaction when Illinois first floated the idea of riverboat gambling. Kentucky's northern boundary is the low-water mark of the Ohio River as it existed in 1792. Our attorney general at the time threatened Illinois, saying all sorts of dire things might happen if one of their boats made it into Kentucky waters.

His quote was, "We don't allow gambling in Kentucky."

I'm sure the proprietors of Churchill Downs and Keeneland found that bit of news to be surprising.

[1995hoo]

The Virginia—Maryland state line (and, by derivation, the Virginia—DC and West Virginia—Maryland lines) is, for the most part, at the low-water mark on the Virginia shoreline (although there are some bays and other features at which the border cuts across from headland to headland). There are various stories about how back in the days when more of Virginia was "dry" than is the case now, various people wanting to sell alcohol built docks on the Virginia side, moored boats to them, but deliberately left a portion of the dock unconnected to the physical shoreline above the low-water mark so that you had to step over a gap in order to go out to where the boat was. Allegedly this was sufficient to locate the moored boat in Maryland with no connection to Virginia. The lack of a physical connection to Virginia was important because the colonial charter, which still forms the basis for the border issues, gives Virginia full riparian rights (meaning you can build docks and other such structures, draw water from the river, etc.).

For example, there used to be a boat "docked" in Maryland waters near Leesylvania State Park in Virginia that offered liquor by the drink and slot machines, but it shut down in 1958 after Maryland passed a law (due to complaints from the Virginia government) requiring that such facilities be accessible by land from Maryland. They could, of course, repeal that law.