Casino news from http://www.zwire.com:80/
11/01/2006
For more than a dozen years now, the Narragansett Indian Tribe has been trying to build a casino.
They've gone through different locations, different governors and different gaming partners. They've been to court. They've jumped through a series of legislative hoops as to stagger the mind.
On Tuesday, they finally get what they've been asking for all along: the people of Rhode Island will vote on whether or not the Narragansetts should be given the right to build a casino in this state.
Much has been said about this emotionally charged issue over the past several months.
On the one side, we have those who say it will be a boon. The other side says it will be a boondoggle.
Those in favor say it will help the economy, bring jobs, give us property tax relief, keep our gambling money from going to Connecticut and give a little justice to the Indians, who have been the victims of centuries of injustice.
Those opposed say it will bring crime and prostitution, severely hurt (if not close down) Lincoln Park and Newport Grand, hurt local restaurants and entertainment venues, and actually become a burden to the state, claiming the casino won't bring us the tax money that Lincoln and Newport do. They also point to the folly of amending the Constitution for one organization -- or in this case, two: "the Narragansett Indian Tribe and their chosen partner."
Both sides, of course, are armed with the statistics to back up what they say.
So who's right?
Well, we just don't know. And we've been entrenched in the whole casino bruhaha for more than a decade now. Walking into the voting booth may very well be like walking up to a slot machine -- it's a gamble.
But all business is. The word entrepreneur means "risk taker." And despite what either side says, we have no guarantee that the casino will be a benefit to the state. We have no evidence that it will be a detriment either.
Just as in any business proposition -- anything can happen.
That being said, we cautiously endorse the casino proposal. We've certainly always been in favor of putting the question before the voters. It's nice to see that it's actually happening.
If there's one regret, it's that we have to amend the Constitution to do it. That wouldn't be happening at all if it wasn't for the Rhode Island Supreme Court's interesting interpretation in the first place.
They interpret the word "lottery" to mean all gambling. There's no way the folks who wrote that clause had a casino in mind. But there we have it -- a constitution that, according to the high court, only allows gambling that's operated by the state.
That interpretation never should have been made, and the question should have been on the ballot the last time around.
But after all the argument, research and statistics, it all comes down to something very simple. If the people of Rhode Island want a casino in West Warwick, then we should have a casino in West Warwick. It's as simple as that.
That's the way democracy works.
|
|
