Jump to content

PROPOSED: Harrah's/Narragansett Casino


Cotuit

Recommended Posts

so why wouldnt Providence try to plan an agreement where they maybe give out some tax benefits for the exchange of just a waterfront casino.. no additional hotel, food, or convention space.

I don't know what the city's official stance is (or if there is anything official beyond simply stating they aren't interested), but I would imagine a chief concern would be crime and poverty issues. Allow me to paint with a broad brush for a moment, but an Allens Avenue casino would be right on the edge of one of the state's poorest areas, Lower South Providence. Economically disadvantaged residents of Lower South Providence would be hard pressed to resist the temptation of free money a short walk away. Of course casinos are in the business of making money, they bring in more than they pay out, so trying to get out of dire economic straights through gambling is foolhardy and would result in poor people becoming poorer. Casinos are for people who have money to have fun playing with it, the residents of Lower South Providence are in no position to play with money. Poor people going further into debt breeds crime when they become desperate.

The other issue, is that redeveloping Allens Avenue, without a casino is going to be hard enough. There's a lot of opposition from various groups about redeveloping the waterfront. It will be easier without the anti-casino lobby joining the fight against redevelopment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 328
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The other issue, is that redeveloping Allens Avenue, without a casino is going to be hard enough. There's a lot of opposition from various groups about redeveloping the waterfront. It will be easier without the anti-casino lobby joining the fight against redevelopment.

Just out of curiosity, who is opposed to the redeveloping the waterfront?

I am partially, and I can certainly understand why other people would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the more we talk about this the more I hope this state votes NO to any casino..

I'm sure you've heard of the crime that comes along with a casino. Don't let anyone tell you that Southeastern CT hasn't seen an increase in casino-related crimes. I certainly have noticed. A lot of people who if it wasn't for being addicted to gambling would have never committed a crime, are in jail. Other crime stemming from the increased population of low income, low skill workers that have been brought in to work there has been occuring. Sure, all I'm presenting is anecdotal evidence, but what I said is true.

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.ph...ndpost&p=440295

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity, who is opposed to the redeveloping the waterfront?

I am partially, and I can certainly understand why other people would be.

I think the City of Cranston is against a waterfront casino, or they were several years ago when a site on the Providence/Cranston line was suggested. And I remember the former/late Sen John Chaffee did something years ago to prevent the Narr's from building a casino.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity, who is opposed to the redeveloping the waterfront?

I am partially, and I can certainly understand why other people would be.

A lot of the opposition to general (not casino) development on the waterfront comes from people who already have businesses down there. I don't blame them, and I don't think the entire waterfront should be redeveloped. There should be a way for parts of it (Conley's Wharf and other areas) to be redeveloped and incorporate the existing industry into the neighborhood. I think south of Thurbers Curve (the overpass for the exit), it should remain largely as is, with some better screening of the industrial areas from the street (trees!) and improvements to make the area more walkable, to connect with the areas further south.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure you've heard of the crime that comes along with a casino. Don't let anyone tell you that Southeastern CT hasn't seen an increase in casino-related crimes. I certainly have noticed. A lot of people who if it wasn't for being addicted to gambling would have never committed a crime, are in jail. Other crime stemming from the increased population of low income, low skill workers that have been brought in to work there has been occuring. Sure, all I'm presenting is anecdotal evidence, but what I said is true.

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.ph...ndpost&p=440295

while crime affects everyone in the area... if you wouldn't otherwise commit a crime, but do because of your gambling addiction, you need to be responsible for your own actions. if that means getting help or calling that 800 number that's posted on every slot machine and all over the casino, by all means do it. i get really annoyed when people can't take responsibility for their own actions and blame it on an addiction. serve your time for your crime, which you committed under no one else's pressure, and get help for your addiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

while crime affects everyone in the area... if you wouldn't otherwise commit a crime, but do because of your gambling addiction, you need to be responsible for your own actions. if that means getting help or calling that 800 number that's posted on every slot machine and all over the casino, by all means do it. i get really annoyed when people can't take responsibility for their own actions and blame it on an addiction. serve your time for your crime, which you committed under no one else's pressure, and get help for your addiction.

I'm all for people being responsible for their actions, but I'm also all for not being the victim of those actions, either directly or through increased taxes for more police and paying for damage/loss of property. I think the fact that the casinos need to put those stickers with 800 numbers everywhere speaks volumes about the effects of casinos on the local community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for people being responsible for their actions, but I'm also all for not being the victim of those actions, either directly or through increased taxes for more police and paying for damage/loss of property. I think the fact that the casinos need to put those stickers with 800 numbers everywhere speaks volumes about the effects of casinos on the local community.

it's my opinion, as i am not a psychologist or sociologist, that the people who end up with gambling problems will end up with other problems from other things. it has to do with their will-power and self-control. if they can easily end up as gambling addicts, who's to say they won't end up doing something else that's self-destructive?

i also think that the casinos should be forced to put money into the state and local governments to help pay for more police and the property damage/loss. if the crime rate of an area increases and it's those certain crimes related to casinos, it can be attributed to the casino and they should be paying more towards that. this is part of the reason that if they allow a casino, it should go to the one who has a written agreement to give the most money to the state and local governments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for people being responsible for their actions, but I'm also all for not being the victim of those actions, either directly or through increased taxes for more police and paying for damage/loss of property. I think the fact that the casinos need to put those stickers with 800 numbers everywhere speaks volumes about the effects of casinos on the local community.

What he said.

Several million dollars were embezzled from that chevy dealer, all of which was lost at the Mohegan Sun that is almost literally a stone's throw away from the dealership. I forget how much was stolen in the other cases. While burglaries were few and far between around here 15 years ago, now that the casinos are around my parents' neighbors and my father's office were burglarized, my (idiotic) relative with the truck, a home invasion where I live.

It might not seem like it's too bad and you can say each case is unfortunate and isolated, until you reflect on it all. There have been a lot of murders for a small town, at least one of which was not categorized as a murder but my father is convinced was. (on edit: make that two, i just thought of another. both were said to be suicides) A few years back the murders were at an outrageous level for such a small town. I'd have to look it up, though.

i also think that the casinos should be forced to put money into the state and local governments to help pay for more police and the property damage/loss. if the crime rate of an area increases and it's those certain crimes related to casinos, it can be attributed to the casino and they should be paying more towards that. this is part of the reason that if they allow a casino, it should go to the one who has a written agreement to give the most money to the state and local governments.

RI voters need to be very careful with this. Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun give 25% of their slot revenue to the state, which in return gives squat to the impact towns. Norwich was getting a little over a million per year last time I checked, while the big cities like Hartford were getting more. Put it in perspective that each casino makes roughly $70 million per month in slot revenue, and it's clear that we are getting screwed in SE CT. That revenue is why the state of CT is running a budget surplus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RI voters need to be very careful with this. Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun give 25% of their slot revenue to the state, which in return gives squat to the impact towns. Norwich was getting a little over a million per year last time I checked, while the big cities like Hartford were getting more. Put it in perspective that each casino makes roughly $70 million per month in slot revenue, and it's clear that we are getting screwed in SE CT. That revenue is why the state of CT is running a budget surplus.

that's why i think instead of giving a percentage solely to the state, a percentage should also be reserved for the local governments that would be affected. something along these lines...

15% to the state

5% to town the casino is in

5% split evenly to immediate neighboring towns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's why i think instead of giving a percentage solely to the state, a percentage should also be reserved for the local governments that would be affected. something along these lines...

15% to the state

5% to town the casino is in

5% split evenly to immediate neighboring towns.

how about 7% for in town and 3% out of town

doesnt seem fair to give them the same proportions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how about 7% for in town and 3% out of town

doesnt seem fair to give them the same proportions

I don't know about that. Neither Casino is in Norwich and Norwich gets the brunt of the impact. Providence might have the same problems as Norwich with a casino in Johnston or West Warwick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how about 7% for in town and 3% out of town

doesnt seem fair to give them the same proportions

i didn't mean 5% to the neighboring towns. i meant split taht 5% among the neighboring towns (so if there's 3, they each get 5% divided by 3 (whatever that comes out to be). if there's 4, they each get 1.25%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of the opposition to general (not casino) development on the waterfront comes from people who already have businesses down there. I don't blame them, and I don't think the entire waterfront should be redeveloped. There should be a way for parts of it (Conley's Wharf and other areas) to be redeveloped and incorporate the existing industry into the neighborhood. I think south of Thurbers Curve (the overpass for the exit), it should remain largely as is, with some better screening of the industrial areas from the street (trees!) and improvements to make the area more walkable, to connect with the areas further south.

That's what I thought. I don't blame them either. If they lose their property, they have nowhere to go. As ugly as maritime industry is, it's one of the primary things that built this city, and it's something we need.

I agree with you on the development. If any of it is going to be redeveloped, it should only be the area north of Thurbers. Also, I do love the idea of using trees to mask the industry. Anyways, back to casino talk.

Let me just say that I am voting "NO."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://theday.com/re.aspx?re=ca801077-d6bf...4d-785f07ec13bb

Donna Allen, the former town Finance Department employee who stole $257,000 in town funds, has sent the town a check for $151,138 for losses not covered by the town's insurance company.

...

Allen worked for the town for 25 years. She was fired in December 2003 after she admitted to stealing between $10,000 and $50,000. A town audit placed the figure at $257,000.

Sources have said Allen gambled approximately $1 million on slot machines at Foxwoods Resort Casino.

This kinda stuff comes along somewhat often around here. With a casino nearby... people with a high succeptability to gambling problems will cave in and a lot of this kind of stuff will happen. Imagine how many people are still doing this around here and just haven't been caught?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I havent read every single article and this mornings article doesnt specify...but by voters, does it mean west warwick voters or state of r.i. voters............ AND, what will we all be voting if you dont mind me asking

http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo_20...2.220583ff.html

I say no

state of RI. we're voting on an amendment to the state constitution taht would specifically allow the narragansetts to build a casino in west warwick (the amendment is that specific, basically saying "screw you" to any competitors). the question will be on the november ballot. both the senate and the house voted in favor of the amendment sending it to the citizens of RI.

i am against this amendment simply because i don't think such specific wording favoring a certain group of people belongs in the state constitution. if it allowed casinos in general and created hurdles for them, i'd probably vote in favor of it. but it doesn't. it only allows the narragansetts to build one and it only allows them to do it in west warwick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

state of RI. we're voting on an amendment to the state constitution taht would specifically allow the narragansetts to build a casino in west warwick (the amendment is that specific, basically saying "screw you" to any competitors). the question will be on the november ballot. both the senate and the house voted in favor of the amendment sending it to the citizens of RI.

i am against this amendment simply because i don't think such specific wording favoring a certain group of people belongs in the state constitution. if it allowed casinos in general and created hurdles for them, i'd probably vote in favor of it. but it doesn't. it only allows the narragansetts to build one and it only allows them to do it in west warwick.

If I were them (politicians) and I didn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • 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.