The state Supreme Court acted in the best interests of the citizenry in advising that placing a question regarding a proposal by Harrah’s Entertainment and the Narragansett Indian Tribe to build a casino in West Warwick on a statewide ballot this November would violate the Rhode Island Constitution.
And Superior Court Judge Daniel A. Procaccini, in agreeing with that opinion and ruling that voters should not be asked a question almost certain to be ruled unconstitutional, also acted in the best interests of the people.
In hindsight, both proponents and opponents in the casino saga should have seen this coming.
Seifert Systems Invests in Energy Efficiency to Strengthen Operations
For manufacturers, energy is more than just another operating expense. It plays a critical role…
Learn More
The state constitution clearly spells out that casino activities in Rhode Island must be state-run – and that the proposal by Harrah’s and the Narragansetts was a private enterprise.
So what happens next?
It will be interesting to watch and see what approach Harrah’s and the Narragansetts take.
One option is for them to lobby the General Assembly for permission to seek a constitutional amendment or to re-work the existing proposal so that the state would in fact have a more significant role in the operation of the casino.
Either way, the casino question is off the ballot for this year. That is most assuredly a good thing.
We do not see a casino as the kind of economic development that Rhode Island should be pursuing. We see the arguments made by the state’s hospitality and tourism industry – chiefly, that such a casino would take existing jobs away from them and damage their various businesses – as strong ones.
We also believe that a significant portion of the revenue generated by a private casino run by Harrah’s and the Narragansett Indian Tribe would siphon money from Newport Grand and Lincoln Park, both of which provide the state with a far greater percentage of earnings than the private casino would have provided.
The argument for creating jobs is probably the strongest that casino proponents can make. And West Warwick could certainly use an economic boost. But we remain unconvinced that these will be all new jobs. We think the state – and West Warwick – can do better.
But we also recognize that this casino issue will not be truly resolved until the people of Rhode Island have an opportunity to vote on the merits of such a proposal themselves. Whether they are for or against, the majority of Rhode Islanders have expressed a desire to vote on the issue.
If Harrah’s is deeply committed to its relationship with the Narragansett Indian Tribe and believes a casino here is indeed a wise investment, then another six months – or a year – should not pose a real hardship. A gambling casino here would dramatically change the state’s economic landscape, and to a large degree, its environment. To rush into such a decision would be inexcusable.
Harrah’s and the Narragansett Indian Tribe need to come up with a proposal that meets the requirements of the state’s constitution. Surely, that is not too much to ask.
Opponents of the casino should stay vigilant in the coming months. They have made a strong case as to why such a proposal is not in the best interests of the state’s economy – or its overall well-being. But they must continue to make that case and educate the public at every opportunity.
The public does deserve to answer the casino question. We trust that when
that time comes, it will make the right decision.
