"Opponents of the West Warwick casino have said all along the uncertainty surrounding the casino proposal is one of the clearest reasons to vote against it Nov. 7. They cite conflicting economic predictions about its impact and supposedly lacking assurances about the tax revenue it would bring in.

So we can't blame the public, after exposure to a dizzying years-long he-said she-said debate on the topic, for getting a little skittish now that Harrah's own future is unclear. But the officials intimately involved in the debate should know better.

They should know, for instance, that the proposed constitutional amendment doesn't promise a thing to Harrah's - but rather to the Narragansett Indian Tribe, which has always been free to choose any partner it finds agreeable (and has been through other failed partnerships in the past). The fact that the media and clever opponents have oversimplified things to suggest it's Harrah's own business plan being written into the constitution doesn't make that any less true.

So voters who back the casino will be backing the assertion that the Narragansetts are entitled to its benefits - and that doesn't change whether Harrah's gets bought out, prospers for another 100 years or goes out of business tomorrow. Harrah's is a business, and even with yesterday's announcement aside, all of those possibilities have always loomed."

Get the Story:
Editorial: Casino no more of a gamble than before (The Kent County Daily Times 10/4)