The Casino Issue

I have been thinking a lot about the Casino Issue:

http://www.providencejournal.com/politics/content/20140630-for-2nd-time-r.i.-senate-approves-proposed-newport-casino-referendum.ece

My position is that, 

By all means, we should encourage rejection of the casino extension ballot in November, but if successful in so doing then immediately pursue establishing a HCA (Host Community Agreement) with the prospective owners to then be put to yet another ballot.

Working taxpayers do not have the time to consider all the stars in the heavens. That's what councilors and representatives are for.

And several of these constellations of “stars” are obscure at best.

But nevertheless after many hours of considering them I offer:

• This position

• The discussion below

As I've said before, and shall say again, absent new information, here is where we are.

There is much more to be studied, but in short, I think it is fundamentally a matter of balancing the owners' lawful Constitutional rights of property and liberty (Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) with the sincere (albeit not necessarily lawful) concerns of the host community.

But now, some facts, inconvenient or not:

• The words "community" and "democracy", do not appear anywhere in the the Constitution or its amendments.

• Similarly, “feelings” and “opinions” don't count under the law. Only facts and subsequent findings.
  Sorry.

• What the Fifth Amendment does say is the following:

• No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,

When you research a bit further you find that the “liberty” bit refers to being able to do whatever you want to do with your own property, i.e.:

• MYOB

• Keep your hands off my stuff

Given these fundamental facts:

• Like it or not, neither party will likely surrender what they perceive to be their just rights.

http://nocasinori.com/wordpress/ccacg-history/timeline-for-gambling-at-newport-grand/

So better to drive a stake through its heart at the very next opportunity, which would be after a resounding NO in November.

That would be accomplished by either

• Some other more comprehensive long term plan (win-win ideas on which I shall offer more in due course) or

• Pursuing establishing a HCA (Host Community Agreement) with the prospective owners to then be put to yet another ballot.

My position is that, by all means, we should encourage rejection of the casino extension ballot in November, but if successful in so doing then immediately pursue establishing a HCA (Host Community Agreement) with the prospective owners to then be put to yet another ballot.

Indeed, the City Charter allows for mid term elections to be held on approved referenda, so this is definitely doable and need not wait for the next general election.

We can then pursue longer term solutions to address many more of the major issues facing the City, including not only the Casino, but North End development, rampant traffic and parking problems, and the blight of 50 Washington Square.

(All the while, addressing the “what are you going to do about this” issues I have already raised “What about the potholes, dude?”)

Regarding the Casino, whatever arrangement is approved in the near term, we should be able to total up the elements of a deal at the end of the year and say “this is what we got:"

Doing so is extremely difficult:

The bill is at

http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText14/HouseText14/H8294Aaa.pdf

You can read it yourself. It is a markup of earlier bills.

And it is total gibberish.

If you really are into self-flagellation, here is a redaction of HR8294Aaa stripped of ancillary clauses and references to try to make a straight sentence of each clause. Exhausting...

But even in that form it still is convoluted. The bottom line is that it takes the money and sends it everywhere, except here.

At present, this is the landscape as presented to me:

• Lincoln gets approximately $7 million in cash payments, plus indirect aid in the form of jobs.

• Newport currently gets approximately $350,000, plus indirect aid in the form of jobs.

• The non-guaranteed State offer is a temporary annual payment of $1.5 million, decreasing to $1 million after 4 years.

This is a bad deal for several reasons:

1. The state legislature can revoke the payment at any time

2. The deal is contingent on the investors spending the full $40 million

3. There is no requirement that the investors invest even 10 cents

4. There is no CPI increase (in 20 years, $1m will be worth a heckuva lot less than now).

Given all that what to do?

Councilors have written (with several revisions) and proposed a comprehensive HCA with a full bodysuit of legal language that would serve the purpose of:

• Protecting the property and liberty rights of the owners

• Appeasing the community concerns of and improving the monetary proceeds to the host community: Us.

I think it is certainly comprehensive and generally brilliant. It should be pursued.

This is my interpretation absent the voluminous detail and legal language; you are free to build your own, if you have the time and inclination, by reading it in its entirety yourself, right here.

This approach is a lot smarter than continuing wasting time arguing about things over which we have no control.

Although admittedly, a lot harder than just spouting opinions.

So, if asked by media what is my position on the Casino, my answer is (in bold):

By all means, we should encourage rejection of the casino extension ballot in November, but if successful in so doing then immediately pursue establishing a HCA (Host Community Agreement) with the prospective owners to then be put to yet another ballot.

Although, in the sum of things, Newport is probably about as close as you can get.

Which is why the third part is Commitment.