CASINO
PROPONENTS WILL
STOP AT NOTHING 4/10/2006
By
Hal Meyer
It
appears the casino
backers will stop at nothing to ram a casino down our throats.
The
latest gimmick by the
casino proponents is a promise of hundreds of millions of dollars for
"tax
relief" --but there is virtually no fiscal basis for such promises.
If a
new casino with a
"sweetheart" tax rate were to drain away business from Lincoln Park
and Newport Grand, which now pay a relatively high rate to the state,
individual taxpayers may actually see their taxes INCREASE --not
decrease --as
a result of a new casino.
Our
state legislators are
quick to claim theirs is a "slow" and "deliberative" law
making process, but in reality it looks super rushed and slipshod.
What
precedent is there
for amending the state constitution for the benefit of one casino
company? And
how has our government before analyzed such matters?
Some
precedent exists in
the form of a gambling commission report which was issued a few short
years
ago, supposedly to help clarify our state's casino policy. The RI
Special House
Commission to Study Gaming issued a report on April 1, 2003.
Two of
the
"over-arching findings" from its final report include:
"2. The referendum should take place before
choosing a specific casino development proposal. Obviously,
voter rejection would end the
issue. On the other hand, approval would likely result in more
proposals.
3. A fair and open process for prospective
casino developers would be needed to ensure the best agreement for
Rhode
Islanders. Accordingly, voter approval should lead to the establishment
of an
independent regulatory body to commence a competitive casino
development
process that will culminate with the selection of a successful casino
development bidder."
Yet,
these findings are
apparently being short-circuited and cast aside, which makes whole
thing look
fishy. In the rush to do the corporate and special interest bidding, it
raises
basic questions of good government.
Why are
these findings
from the gaming commission apparently being ignored? Why does the
current
casino proposal deviate? Is there a reason for the deviation, or are
the
commission's findings being shunned willy-nilly?
Where
is the recommended
competitive bidding? Is the current proposal "fair and open" as the
commission recommends?
If
ignoring government
findings to fuel special interest greed isn't a question of good
government,
what is?