What Part of NO Don't They Get?

What Part of NO Don't They Get?

The saddest site in Newport is the parking lot of the Newport Grand on a Saturday night. It is a perfect illustration of whom gambling appeals to. The parking lot is packed with aging cars belonging to people who somehow think that they can make a few bucks. The chances are that they will lose money they could use to pay rent---or for monthly installments on those cars they need so badly. That's the thing that bothers many people about allowing Newport Grand table games. It will get even worse if table gambling is permitted. They want to tart up Newport to look like Las Vegas. The great objection to these grandiose plans (no pun intended) is that gambling lures the people who really can't afford it. If you're a Hollywood star and go in and drop $100,000 at a gaming table, no problem. It's chump change. For most people who live in this area, gambling only takes away money that many of us don't have in the first place. 

What is it about NO that the grandees at Newport Grand don't understand? What part of NO don't they get? No means no. Newporters voted NO in 2012 and they'll vote NO again and again. This current proposed resolution supporting another gambling referendum to enlarge a pretentious den of iniquity for table gambling is a waste of the city council's time and taxpayer's taxes. That---and its potential to bankrupt the city---is the only thing grand about it.

It is a well-known fact that 85% of the time gamblers do NOT win. Now, who is foolish enough to support a culture of gambling when there are clear, well-researched facts that gamblers win only 15% of the time? Gamblers are likely to be the people least able to afford gambling. Besides, the future for gambling is not in Las Vegas-like follies but online. Anyone under fifty-five gambles online.

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

On Wednesday, May 28th, the Newport City Council intends to vote on a city resolution supporting a new referendum to put the casino question on the ballot once more. The proposed resolution pretends to restrict Newport Grand LLC to staying only at its current address. Nonetheless, it will in fact do nothing but allow casino gambling anywhere in Newport. A Rhode Island Superior Court decision stated that Newport Grand LLC is not subject to the city of Newport's planning, zoning, or fire safety ordinances. It states that Providence can override all of the local protections. The proposed resolution would authorize Newport Grand LLC as a corporation to operate casinos everywhere in Newport. 

In other words, if the Newport City Council votes to support another gambling referendum to put the casino question on the ballot again, they are giving carte blanche for gaming tables anywhere and everywhere in Newport. Those who are taxpayers and landowners and even those who aren't do not want a gambling culture to cloud the historic and aesthetic integrity of their city. They don't want or need huge casinos on their waterfront. Only a teeny tiny bit of state taxes collected from Newport return to Newport, which would make Newport merely a cash cow for the state. Newport has nothing to gain.

The issue is really about preventing Newport Grand and it's potential progeny from operating everywhere in Newport. Sadly, the important fact is this. Should Newporters vote to allow table games at Newport Grand, there is no Constitutional right to a vote on additional casinos in additional locations. Newport's senatorial representative in the state legislature, Teresa Paiva Weed, is trying to address that problem, but the solution only deals with locking Newport Grand in place. Frank N. Ray, a prominent local attorney, points out that there is a glaring loophole in her otherwise enlightened proposition: "The constitution," he writes in a letter to Mayor Harry Winthrop and the members of the City Coucil, "requires a ballot of Newport voters ONLY when the TYPE of gambling allowed in Newport is to be expanded. If Newport voters approve the expansion of the type of gambling allowed in Newport, there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR A FURTHER VOTE on how many casinos will be allowed or where they will be located, and the PAIVA WEED AMENDMENT DOES NOT CHANGE THAT. The amendment applies only to Newport Grand. The voters will have already given their approval for casino gambling within the City."

Newport should not allow itself to become victim to this crude tactic of the gaming industry. Newport Grand is its unseemly stalking horse. If Harrah's buys in next year, Newporters will not have the right to another vote. Table games in Newport will have already been approved.