Jump to content

PROPOSED: Harrah's/Narragansett Casino

Cotuit

By Cotuit
in Rhode Island

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 328
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Cotuit Megalopolis

Cotuit

Posted
  • Author
Posted

This isn't an erosion of our constitution it is democracy in action.

This is the General Assembly sleeping on the job again. The voters shouldn't be asked to vote on such a half-assed vague question. The holes should be closed.

I don't actually see that the Consitution needs to be amended at all. The state does not operate Newport and Lincoln, it is contracted out to private firms. The question should be, should the state be allowed to build a casino, owned by the state and run by the Harrahgansetts and their partner (and their partner should be written into the question). If the state owns the casino and the Harrahgansetts operate it, there is no reason to change the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chaz200 Unincorporated Area

chaz200

Posted
Posted

This is the General Assembly sleeping on the job again. The voters shouldn't be asked to vote on such a half-assed vague question. The holes should be closed.

I don't actually see that the Consitution needs to be amended at all. The state does not operate Newport and Lincoln, it is contracted out to private firms. The question should be, should the state be allowed to build a casino, owned by the state and run by the Harrahgansetts and their partner (and their partner should be written into the question). If the state owns the casino and the Harrahgansetts operate it, there is no reason to change the Constitution.

The facilities and the operations are privately owned, the vlts belong to the state, part of the lottery commision, that is the whole 20 year contract with GTECH. So the vlts are run by the state, that is how they comply with the constitution, otherwise the facilities wouldn't be legal.

Yes, the state could offer a deal to the Narragansetts and to date have not, instead they gave tax breaks and additional vlts to BLB and told the Narragansetts "NO." The state doesn't want to help the Narragansetts so they are trying to help themselves.

There are a lot of things that should be or could be but the fact of the matter is they are what they are. The Narragansetts have had no offer from the state. They have tried legal remedies to assert their sovereignty to no avail. So they are attempting a viable method to move forward on a project to sustain their tribe.

I don't necessarily like that they have had to resort to this methodology but after decades of fighting their cause there still hasn't been any offer from the state, so the question is what it is. I just ask that when you vote consider if there are any other viable options for the Narsagansetts based on the past 20 years and the current politcal climate. If the question is defeated will the state step forward and offer a deal? If the question is defeated would the state offer the Narragansetts a cut from current vlt operations? If the question is defeated will the state allow the Narragansetts to open a VLT palor such as Newport or Lincoln? I don't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyGreaves Hamlet

JimmyGreaves

Posted
Posted

If the question is defeated would the state offer the Narragansetts a cut from current vlt operations?

When the state passed legislation 2 years ago allowing Lincoln Park to increase the number of VLTs, it included a provision which would allocate 5% of the expanded portion of the net slot income to the Narragansett Tribe with a cap of $10 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lone Ranger Burg

Lone Ranger

Posted
Posted

The Indian Gaming Act and the Pequots sovereign lands is what allowed Foxwoods to be built without much say by the state. The Narragansetts do not have sovereign land, they have settlement land that was given to them because of a deal that stripped them of their tribal lands. The settlement land grant stipulates that the land is not sovereign and is governed by the laws of the State of RI. The whole Chaffee amendment to the Indian Gaming Act is what the Narragansetts have been fighting and losing. Because they can't build a casino under the Indian Gaming Act they are asking the people of Rhode Island to allow them to do so under the laws of Rhode Island. In order to do this the Constitution needs to be amended so that an entity other than the state can run a "Lottery." Narrowing the amendment to the Narragansetts limits other entities from trying to establish other casinos in the state.

This isn't an erosion of our constitution it is democracy in action. This isn't a referendum on gambling because we already have 2 casinos in the state; this is a referendum on whether we will allow the Narragansetts to build a casino as a revenue source for their tribe. Remember the constitution can only be amended by the people therefore the checks and balances will prevent the "slippery slope" alluded to.

The bottom line is the Narragansetts cannot build a casino without a Constitutional amendment. One amendment could be to allow anyone to open a casino and set up a gaming commission but in this case the amendment offered is limited in scope to prevent casino projects from popping up all over the state. The amendment is narrow in scope to allow the Narragansetts to build without opening up our state to all comers.

Keep in mind that there is nothing preventing the state from doing what has been mentioned here several times. The state can decide to build a full casino and bid it out and work out a deal with any company it desires. There is nothing preventing that except that wherever they build it the people of the municipality will need to approve it (This was a previous amendment to the constitution that nobody seemed to object to.)

The heart of the matter is this is not a state run casino but a private casino owned by the Narragansetts, the questions is should they be able to have one and if so the constitution needs to be amended to allow it.

OK, so the Narragansett Indians screwed themselves when they gave up their sovereign land, and the State of RI screwed itself when it agreed to reimburse Lincoln & Foxwoods for any losses their owners suffer in the event that we authorize another gambling parlor to operate in our state.

Fine. Both parties made their beds, and now they'll have to sleep in them. But the facts are what they are, and inasmuch as I'm not a Narragansett Indian, it's in my personal best interests as a Rhode Island taxpayer to vote against this casino question come November.

FWIW, I'm OK with the idea of another casino, actually. What's more, I like the West Warwick location -- as being about as far as reasonably possible from both of the casinos (and all other tourist attractions) that we already have, not to mention some distance from Providence, all of which I see as good things. :whistling:

I just want the monetary arrangements to be worked out beforehand, and in such a way that the State of RI can be certain in advance that it (read: we!) won't lose money on the deal.

And that's why I'll be voting against the specific casino proposal in question at the next election. I'm voting against it because I can't vote for it because I wouldn't have any idea what (in terms of dollars & cents) I was voting for. And you'll have to forgive me for not trusting Harrah's to do what's in the best interests of the citizens of RI. <_<:thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Statesman Unincorporated Area

Statesman

Posted
Posted

From the General Assembly:

The Joint Resolution, passed by the House and Senate: http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Billtext/Bill...xt06/H7935A.pdf

Incidently, here is the resolution that was backed by the Town of Johnston, that would have ensured a competitive bidding process. This is currently held (AKA dead) within House committee: http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Billtext/Bill...ext06/H8132.pdf

The Rhode Island Constitution, Article VI, Section 22 - On Gambling: http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/gen_assembly/...n/ConstFull.htm

A YES vote would imply Harrah's name and a private deal in my constitution.

No. I absolutely refuse this amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

OK, so the Narragansett Indians screwed themselves when they gave up their sovereign land, and the State of RI screwed itself when it agreed to reimburse Lincoln & Foxwoods for any losses their owners suffer in the event that we authorize another gambling parlor to operate in our state.

Fine. Both parties made their beds, and now they'll have to sleep in them. But the facts are what they are, and inasmuch as I'm not a Narragansett Indian, it's in my personal best interests as a Rhode Island taxpayer to vote against this casino question come November.

FWIW, I'm OK with the idea of another casino, actually. What's more, I like the West Warwick location -- as being about as far as reasonably possible from both of the casinos (and all other tourist attractions) that we already have, not to mention some distance from Providence, all of which I see as good things. :whistling:

I just want the monetary arrangements to be worked out beforehand, and in such a way that the State of RI can be certain in advance that it (read: we!) won't lose money on the deal.

And that's why I'll be voting against the specific casino proposal in question at the next election. I'm voting against it because I can't vote for it because I wouldn't have any idea what (in terms of dollars & cents) I was voting for. And you'll have to forgive me for not trusting Harrah's to do what's in the best interests of the citizens of RI. <_<:thumbsup:

agreed. if the amendment had to be specific to include the harragansetts and the location, it should have also included the name of the business partner (not that it's unknown) and the full details of the monetary deal that the state would get, meaning it would take another amendment to change that monetary deal. i'd support that. i'd also support an amendment that allowed for a bidding process where the people saw the exact deals at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
Lone Ranger Burg

Lone Ranger

Posted
Posted

It's an op ed piece, what do you want? They're not required to be either unbiased or factually accurate. I enjoyed quite a bit the Cicilline article to which this responds: in fact, I was a little surprised that the mayor's article didn't garner any applause on these pages. But oh well, today's article is the flip side of that same coin.

And if not for the slippage clause, much of what Loveman has to say might even be right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KRC Hamlet

KRC

Posted
Posted

Have you seen the latest commercial from the San Diego guy? (I think he's the head of the convention board or something.) He touts how the casinos in the county have been a big boost to San Diego and it convention business and has been great for the city. Has anyone looked and San Diego's financial situation lately? What!!!??? :rofl:

We've got Louisiana's economic urban magic and San Diego's financial prowess. Yeah, I'm voting NO!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.