Over the years, we've had some dubious gambling proposals.  The worst was Harrah's attempt to win approval for a Rhode Island casino in 2004.  I'm not opposed to casino gambling, but I was opposed to Harrah's plan.  They essentially walked into Rhode Island and attempted to dictate their tax rate.  When other casino operators came forward, they received criticism for their late entry.  I can't blame them for their tardiness, since the official start of negotiations was likely announced in a smokey back room.

     The best way to proceed with a casino is to announce a request for proposals.  The state should set the tax rate, outline the potential casino's reponsibilities, such as environmental impact statements, then have a public bidding process for the license.  The deal with Harrahs seemed to smell from the beginning, and I'm starting to detect a similar odor with Twin River.

     The General Assembly is poised to place a question on the ballot asking Rhode Islanders to expand Twin River into a full casino.  There still seem to be plenty of legal questions including the State's role.  Rhode Islanders still don't know who the next owner of Twin River will be, and we have Rep. Donald Lally sponsoring a bill which would allow Apollo Global Management to buy up Twin River's debt, which seems questionable, to say the least.  By the way,  Apollo Global Management is also an owner of Harrah's.  Do you get the feeling that Harrah's is favored in this situation?

     In light of these developments and the State's poor decision to help with marketing costs at Twin River, I'm highly suspicious of the casino legislation.  I might be completely wrong, but I doubt it.