Jump to content

PROPOSED: Trump Casino

Cotuit

By Cotuit,
in Rhode Island

Recommended Posts

Cotuit

Cotuit 2

Posted
Posted

I try my hardest not to editorialize at least in the initial post. But this is ridiculous. :rolleyes:

Trump behind Johnston casino. A representative of Donald Trump wants state lawmakers to consider an open-bidding process for the right to operate a casino in Rhode Island. [ProJo.com]

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply
CtownMikey

CtownMikey 1

Posted
Posted

omg, imagine if both casionos were built??!?!!?!?!?!?! :unsure:

Trump should just target some of the 195 land and build the casino up, not out, and cut out the plans for the entertainment portion of the project so the dunk/convention center/entire arts and entertainment districts wont be hurt as much.

If it ever did happen.. could a traffic solution be thought of, or is there no way to avoid traffic from a casino?

Link to post
Share on other sites
JimmyGreaves

JimmyGreaves 0

Posted
Posted

I try my hardest not to editorialize at least in the initial post. But this is ridiculous. :rolleyes:

Trump behind Johnston casino. A representative of Donald Trump wants state lawmakers to consider an open-bidding process for the right to operate a casino in Rhode Island. [ProJo.com]

I assume this would still have to be approved via a statewide referendum, correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites
basachs

basachs 0

Posted
Posted

Interesting article. We should watch Chester, PA and see how it goes there. Very close to Philly, just like the proposed sites here are to Providence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/15/realesta.../15chester.html

I have been through Chester many times, it is truly in need of a boost. Whether the casino proves to be that boost reminas to be seen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

glassandsteel

glassandsteel 0

Posted
Posted

This is worse than it sounds, we're now throwing a celebrity name to the casino debate. This seems like a shot to get the casino door busted open by force of persuasion. I think that this will intensify the debate and accelerate the timeframe in which we resolve the issue but it also involves two entirely different forces.

There's the legality of the issue, which is a moot discussion. Plain and simple, state-run means less loot for the developer but it's in our constitution because we want to offset the damaging affects of local gambling facilities with the monetary resources to strengthen our state and try to maintain a healthy community (60% to OUR common pot).

Then there's the attempt to muscle in (using huge marketing budgets, celebrity figures, and public naivety) and have the local government rewrite it's laws that were put into place for the sake of avoiding this sort of exploitation (and maybe for the occasional sake of dirty politicians wallets but that's besides the point) and just hand over the future of LEGAL, pre-existing facilities that contribute heavily to our treasury.

This is a low attempt on impressionable people for the sake of bgger profit margins. The shareholder reigns supreme and I just hope this situation doesn't get stupid on us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotuit

Cotuit 2

Posted
  • Author
Posted

This is worse than it sounds, we're now throwing a celebrity name to the casino debate. This seems like a shot to get the casino door busted open by force of persuasion. I think that this will intensify the debate and accelerate the timeframe in which we resolve the issue but it also involves two entirely different forces.

There's the legality of the issue, which is a moot discussion. Plain and simple, state-run means less loot for the developer but it's in our constitution because we want to offset the damaging affects of local gambling facilities with the monetary resources to strengthen our state and try to maintain a healthy community (60% to OUR common pot).

Then there's the attempt to muscle in (using huge marketing budgets, celebrity figures, and public naivety) and have the local government rewrite it's laws that were put into place for the sake of avoiding this sort of exploitation (and maybe for the occasional sake of dirty politicians wallets but that's besides the point) and just hand over the future of LEGAL, pre-existing facilities that contribute heavily to our treasury.

This is a low attempt on impressionable people for the sake of bgger profit margins. The shareholder reigns supreme and I just hope this situation doesn't get stupid on us.

I have a list of General Assembly members I'd like you to run against.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mr2448

mr2448 0

Posted
Posted

What in the hell makes them think they will actually be able to build a casino? Hello, look at what the Harrahgansetts are going through! And I'm sure they would get first dibs on building one anyway.

He's just posturing himself in case Rhode Islanders vote in favor of a Casino this November. If we do, he and his lawyers( and any other casino people) will point out that the casino should go out for bid and with the best deal for the state. You know How Harrah's will give Pennsylvania 52% and Rhode Island only 23%.

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cotuit

Cotuit 2

Posted
  • Author
Posted

In addition, the towns and cities should be encouraged to buy from local companies, thereby stimulating the economy in addition to reducing government spending. It's more sustainable, and reduces the need for a casino as a revenue generator.

Ironically, GTECH has a Buy Providence initiative. I say ironic because they make the machines for Lincoln and Newport.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mij

Mij 0

Posted
Posted

2 questions

1. Why are Newport Grand and Lincoln Park any different? Why haven't they affected us, or have they?

2. If we do have this built..is it basically the end of our Providence renaissance?

These questions seem rhetorical but let me give it a shot.

1. As I keep reading articles about this proposal and the west Warwick one, I keep reading that it's only a matter of time before RI has a destination resort casino, and I'm sorry if I keep beating a dead horse, but why not the Dog Track, or Newport. It seems logical. Adding table games seems like the natural evolution to the "gaming parlor".

2. Yes.... The only way a casino will not destroy the push that were seeing is if it's built on the land of Pier 1. Conley

Link to post
Share on other sites
jencoleslaw

jencoleslaw 0

Posted
Posted

These questions seem rhetorical but let me give it a shot.

1. As I keep reading articles about this proposal and the west Warwick one, I keep reading that it's only a matter of time before RI has a destination resort casino, and I'm sorry if I keep beating a dead horse, but why not the Dog Track, or Newport. It seems logical. Adding table games seems like the natural evolution to the "gaming parlor".

2. Yes.... The only way a casino will not destroy the push that were seeing is if it's built on the land of Pier 1. Conley

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mij

Mij 0

Posted
Posted

There won't be a casino on the water. This very subject was brought up at the CPC hearing last wednesday. The language regarding approved uses will be maintained in the Comp Plan to ensure there's no casino on the waterfront.

I agree that a casino, if there is going to be one, should simply end up where there already is the infastructure. There must be a reason why this is so unappealing to developers.

One word comes to mind "MOB"

Link to post
Share on other sites
EPBOY

EPBOY 0

Posted
Posted

One word comes to mind "MOB"

This is a sensitive issue for Johnston. From Projo:

"Johnston Representatives Joseph Voccola and Stephen Ucci publicly denounced The Providence Journal for noting, in yesterday's story about the casino proposal, that their town boasts the highest percentage of people of Italian ancestry of almost any community in the U.S., according to the 2000 census. They said the mention, in this context, could be misread as a slur."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotuit

Cotuit 2

Posted
  • Author
Posted

This is a sensitive issue for Johnston. From Projo:

"Johnston Representatives Joseph Voccola and Stephen Ucci publicly denounced The Providence Journal for noting, in yesterday's story about the casino proposal, that their town boasts the highest percentage of people of Italian ancestry of almost any community in the U.S., according to the 2000 census. They said the mention, in this context, could be misread as a slur."

The last census estimate named Johnston the percent Italian in the country. Slur or no, there's a point to be made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

  I accept