Should the New Casino Deal Go On the Ballot?

Over the last few weeks, council members have received a great deal of feedback both for, and against the casino initiative.  I've tried to respond to as many emails as I can, but many emails had no return address.  So I thought I'd share my thinking on the initiative here.

I am inclined to support Harry's resolution asking the legislature to put the matter before the voters.  I say this with some hesitation, because I recognize that gambling is not the long term answer for Newport.  

But I am realistically concerned that the existing facility could continue to operate, with little investment or improvement, for the next twenty years or more.  We have all heard the dire forecasts for gaming revenue; but the fact is, as long as money can be made from gambling (or bailouts), then the casino is likely to remain.  And if there is no incentive to adapt and invest, the physical structure will simply deteriorate.  

Perhaps I am mistaken, but to my observation, it's rare that a casino would just surrender its gaming license and commit its land to non-gambling economic development.  So short of confiscating the land by eminent domain (which is unrealistic and probably impermissible), we are going to have to work with the facility owners.

I am optimistically thinking that maybe, just maybe, there is some kind of a deal which could make Newport gambling a little more tolerable, and perhaps even beneficial.  

Now I understand that this issue was narrowly rejected in Newport by a 254 vote swing in 2012 (4578-4071).  However, things have changed since then.  This is a new deal, with a different group of investors, who have apparently worked with the Legislature to ensure that the casino can never be moved to the waterfront, or anywhere from the present location. And I'm told that approximately 500 voters have moved away or come off the 2012 voter list, and that over 1100 new voters have become eligible to vote or moved to town over the last 20 months.

So now in 2014, we have a different deal, with different investors and a different group of voters.  I'm thinking that Newport voters deserve a chance to decide - and I hope I am not mistaken.  

I'm not ready to make a decision about whether to support table games.  So I hope everyone can understand that I am drawing a distinction between a) giving the voters another chance to reject or support an issue, and b) supporting ballot passage.  

If it does get four votes to go on the ballot, I will spend the summer working with the other councilors to hammer out an enforceable "Host Community Agreement" between the city and the investors which clearly articulates everything which Newport can expect from this deal.  And I will make sure that the voters have an opportunity to thoroughly examine such a deal well in advance of the election.  Then we can ALL make an informed decision about whether this particular deal is good for Newport.  Until we have a better understanding of any such deal, I am not sure it makes sense to argue unless you have a moral aversion to all forms of gambling.

Again, I am grateful for everyone's comments, and I welcome all feedback.  

Best,
Mike 835-8775