Editorial: Rhode Island better off without casino

Thursday, November 9, 2006  

"The voters of Rhode Island, who voted to clean up their state government in an earlier election with a balance-of-power amendment to the state constitution, possibly moved by the same spirit have denied an Indian tribe and Las Vegas casino developer the constitutional right to develop a casino in West Warwick.

Nearly two-thirds of the electorate voting said no to the proposed amendment, which would have enabled the Narragansett tribe and its partner, Harrah's Entertainment, to develop the casino, in turn for unspecified tax benefits to the state and to West Warwick.

The proposition was a bad one for a variety of reasons, although the most important one wasn't at the center of controversy: The danger the casino would have posed to the quality of life in Rhode Island. Opening a big casino in this small state, with its penchant for political corruption and organized crime, would have been inviting trouble. The vote for the balance-of-power amendment affirmed the desire of citizens to clean up those problems and a casino would have set back that cause.

For whatever reasons, most of the voters did the right thing and defeated this measure and Harrah's says it won't be back. Every town but West Warwick voted against it, and even there the margin was slim.

The state is better off for the result."

Get the Story:
Editorial: Rhode Island Says 'No' (The New London Day 11/9)
pwday