The Rhode Island Convention Center board is worried that the proposed casino to be built in West Warwick may substantially cut into their annual revenue.
Board chairman David Duffy expressed concerns about the effects that the proposed casino may have to their own convention center, as the said casino is expected to include a meeting space. "I don't know if we want to see a casino complex that offers conventions," Duffy said.
Members of the Authority's board met June 22 for their monthly meeting and debated about the possible negative effects if the Harrah's Entertainment-Narragansett Indian casino should open. At the time however, they could not come to an agreement on what impact it might have.
One of the main concerns of the board is the ability of the Providence Convention Center to pay back its state debts, funds used in the building of the said complex amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. "The state has a real stake in the success of this complex," said Duffy. "The concern is the impact on our facilities and our almost $300 million in debt."
If convention groups decide to hold their events at the proposed casino rather than the Providence convention center, it may affect the state building's ability to generate revenue, Duffy added.
The ballot question have been given a green light by the House and the Senate and the casino issue is set to be included on the fall 2006 ballots. The ballot will contain the question as to whether they support a change to the state's Constitution to provide exclusive casino-gambling rights to the proposed facility.
"My concern is all the ancillary businesses that are adjacent to these facilities," said Jerry Massa, a board member. "No one's been able to explain the impact to these businesses."
Dale Venturini, an authority board member and president of the Rhode Island Hospitality and Tourism Association, is not turning a blind eye to the lure of perks and privileges that the await prospective casino convention customers, such as free hotel rooms and meals. "You can't compete with free," said Venturini.
Duffy said that it was "premature" for the authority to take a formal position, despite the board's public discussion of the issue. He said he wanted to see if the casino question will end up on the ballot, as its legality may be challenged by a lawsuit.
"I think we should just remain vigilant," Duffy said. "And at the appropriate time we should think about making a statement or resolution."
Sunday, 23. 2006
Edward O'Connor