Column: Narragansett casino won't benefit state

Friday, October 6, 2006  

"The decision on the proposed Harrah's/Narragansett Indian Tribe casino is one of the most important votes that Rhode Islanders will cast at the polls this November.

So far, the debate has focused on a few key issues. Many have questioned the deal struck with Harrah's, saying it's a bad deal and casts real doubt on how much of the gambling dollars spent at the casino would really be kept in Rhode Island, or just sent out of state to add to Harrah's profits. Some have raised serious doubts about the pro-casino promise of property-tax relief. Others point to the casino's possible negative impacts on lives -- gambling addiction, bankruptcies, family breakdown, and a rise in crime.

I would urge people to administer an additional test to the proposed casino: Would amending the constitution to permit the casino work to the long-term economic benefit of Providence and Rhode Island residents in general? I firmly believe that it would not; therefore, I will vote against the casino, and I urge others to do the same."

Get the Story:
David N. Cicilline: A casino would silence the Providence 'buzz' (The Providence Journal 10/6)
pwpwd