If we MUST have a casino

Capital Center: let the stink be right under their noses.

I voted Twin River expansion. any full scale casino is Providence is going to put them out of business. I guess then maybe CCRI could take more space but more likely it would become a giant empty box in the Landscape.

Frankly though I don’t like that location much and the people of Lincoln and North Providence probably shouldn’t either.

Allens Ave I guess would be fine to create some kind of sin district, although having it right next to the “knowledge district” seems counter-intuitive. But I can’t see it being a driver of other development in the city. I know proponents like to talk about Foxwoods and Mohegan but I’m not sure that part of CT has actually been improved by that activity.

Jason, you’re thoughts are good. Here is my concern, because it dovetails a bit with the 195 discussion. If you build a casino with no parking, then people are not going to come. Or, at least, a developer is going to say that people are not going to come. People are going to want tons of free parking for a casino.

OK, so we get the casino to build parking.

But then, people actually don’t wander around the city. The drive their car in, go to the casino, and then leave in their car. Remember that casinos tend to have all varieties of services self-contained, and are designed to keep people in, not engage their surroundings. I assume it will be rather similar to Providence Place. I’m not sure what % of PPlace shoppers actually venture out much.

I was thinking like you that it would be great to try an urban-style casino. Restrict the amount of parking, etc. But I’m just not sure it would really fly unless the city subsidized it heavily, and even then I’m not sure it would necessarily work.

I wish I could have voted for two options, because it would make sense to expand both Twin River AND Newport Grand at the same time. I think doing so would help Twin River stay afloat and that Newport Grand would actually grow.
In regards to the other options:

The Narragansett proposal – No chance in hell until they give up on trying to pay significantly less in taxes than the two current facilities we have.

Allens ave. – I too, like the idea of the sin district, in theory. In practice, I feel like crime would skyrocket if it was put there. I don’t have anything to really back this up, but having a place that sometimes attracts desperate people in the middle of the night to an area that is pretty dark and underdeveloped seems like a dangerous combination. I don’t know if I’d ever walk that street at night again is all I’m saying. Too much sin in one place maybe?

LaSalle Square – Not a bad idea altogether, the police station is right nearby, so they could impose a pretty heavy presence to dissuade riff raff from spilling over into the nearby establishments. I’m not sure if this location would help or hurt the convention center in the long run but I think it could be attractive if any retail or restaurants were on the ground floor much like the mall. Possibly the best of the Providence locations.

Capital Center – It’ll never happen. All it will take is one resident at the Waterplace condos to threaten to move out and it’s all over. That aside, it would be pretty to have on the river and would fit in the lot with Citizens bank, both in size and in spirit. You could go to one place where people go to gamble with their own money and be next to another place where people go to gamble with the money of others!

Ideally, for me:

1) Not here. (Providence, that is.)

2) Not in any form that’ll take away entertainment revenue from Providence. (Let people gamble any way they want, but don’t build any facilities that will compete with PPAC, the Civic Center, or the Convention Center.)

Anywhere in Providence should work. Downtown would be the ideal location, if it weren’t quite dead by 9 pm. (Monte Carlo is not exactly Manhattan, but it generally stays busy until fairly late at night.) Thayer Street, which stays open later at night and is vastly less sketchy, would be a better choice if it weren’t too far from anything except Brown.

Casino’s without all the ancillary functions, hotels, restaurants, shops, etc. are not going to happen. Casino operators want a captive audience. If a customer has to leave the premises to go their hotel, or out to eat or buy something with their winnings they may not come back. And, while I love Providence it is not Monte Carlo. Mean temps there never get below 50. Providence in February is not very conducive to strolling.

I like the idea of expanding Twin River. Negotiate a contract that is good to the people of Lincoln to help alleviate any financial burdens and fears. Connect the casino to the city with light rail or monorail from downtown, Providence can still be a destination and offer gaming a 10-15 minute ride away. How about running any rail project right up 146 to Woonsocket with some kind of people mover to Twin River.

As for the social ills of gaming; approx. 2 million (1%) of U.S. citizens are considered pathological gamblers in in a given year. 4-6 million (2-3%) are considered problem gamblers. I have always felt that any gaming contract should include enough money put aside (on top of already negotiated payouts) to ensure that services are available to counsel and treat those who may find themselves with a problem. This not only includes addiction, but suicide prevention and other afflictions that occur from problem gaming. The state should partner up with the Brown U. medical school and the Providence Center to provide services. Create a program that not only treats but does research into the causes of and the future treatments of addiction.

If the state needs to compete with Mass. and keep making its money from gaming it should do it in a responsible way that brings benefit to the public and helps alleviate the harm it causes.

While this blog is mostly about Providence and its surroundings, as a whole, the state should look towards its natural resources to bring in money… the ocean, the beaches, the bay (though VT will tell you that scenic beauty and outdoor recreation alone does not bring in a ton of money).

I do not think we should get rid of Twin River and raise taxes. That will only hurt the people that live here. That’s a horrible answer. Twin River is only like a tax on a small subset of our population who enjoy gambling (or have a problem). Perhaps the answer should be build Twin River into a full on resort casino with something that differentiates it from the CT and MA casinos. Of course, then the Narragansetts will probably sue the state for some of that money.

I can’t imagine what Twin River could offer that would in any way differentiate it from any other full scale casino. What could it offer that would entice people to drive past Mohegan/Foxwoods or Foxboro/Fall River to reach it?

Imagine this: Prostitutes! Too bad they changed the law.

You know… if the people of the state weren’t so afraid of sex, we could make a killing on prostitution if we just fully legalized it rather than having it legal through a loophole.

I’m not sure how our stripper laws compare to CT. I’m pretty sure CT allows full nudity if no alcohol is served. If alcohol is served, it’s topless only.

Turning the Dynamo House into a casino is a really interesting idea. There’s plenty of room in the building for the Heritage Harbor Museum, casino, possibly even the Aloft Hotel. Quick, somebody tell Steve Wynn to get his ass down to Providence and make it happen.

It’s predictable that the state would get into the online gambling racket… But, seriously, the Dynamo House would make a truly unique, destination casino. I’d be for it. Even better would be to link it to the city, so that people venture out to downtown restaurants, bars and shops. It would also be easy to route the streetcar to the casino.

The problem with Twin River is that it is isolated from other small businesses that could benefit from casino goers. At present, people aren’t shopping in Lincoln or going out to restaurants; they’re driving there for just a few hours, spending their money inside the casino, and then hopping back on 95. I would be interested to know how many people actually make a weekend of Twin River; most likely few are going to the casino, and then heading to PVD to eat, shop and shack up in a hotel. In the event that they do allow table games at Twin River and even if they try to shuttle people back and forth from Providence, I still think the majority of people would not be spending their time and money outside of the Twin River bubble.

The fact is that a Providence casino would have a much greater economic impact on Rhode Island, and Providence, particularly if it were designed to be integrated into the city in a manner that encourages casino goers to travel about the city to shop and dine. Some or all of the $100 million that the state loses in tax revenue could be recouped “at” the casino; but that doesn’t say anything about the benefits to businesses, small and large, all throughout the city.

The infrastructure needs in Newport is another reason why a casino in Providence makes the most sense. In addition, consider the fact that Mayor Waluk recently expressed interest in exploring table games at Newport Grand, which comes out of a concern that a Fall River casino would be a big hit to Newport Grand and Newport. The fact is, a Providence casino would kill two birds with one stone. The proposal for a Fall River casino would fall flat if an urban casino in Providence is in the works–it’s no contest. Hence, Newport is in the clear from Fall River competition. People would much rather go to a casino in Providence and take advantage of all that the city offers than to go to Fall River, which offers, well, nothing really (with all due respect).

I think that you are right, Jef, about the need for a Rep from Providence to stand up and make the case for an urban casino.

How can anyone be absolutely certain that a casino will be such a huge moneymaker? Obviously, the people who want one built will draw on past numbers, but this recession has taught us that doing that never works out. Also, I would think the Foxwoods situation would be another red flag, but maybe I’m just a buzzkill because I don’t personally like casinos.

http://blogs.wpri.com/2010/09/17/why-foxwoods-luck-is-running-out/

I think we need a ‘stop loss’ approach. We’re NOT going to be able to compete in terms of biggest/best, but we CAN keep money local and have casinos add to the ‘weird/hip’ aspect of Providence.

Instead of building a ‘destination’ casino, Providence could auction a handful of licenses for small ‘gambling parlors’ in the city.

I want to see one place that’s ‘working class’, one that’s more upscale, one for hipsters, one that caters to the convention center crowds, etc.. Let the parlors boost local business and commercial real estate instead of draw it away to some godforsaken suburb.

“I prefer one casino that is connected to the business, hotels and restaurants in the city.”

I’m not sure how you can have a single self-contained casino that also gets people to go out on the town in other ways.

“Furthermore, I really don’t like the idea of creating a casino targeted at working class people who already don’t have enough money”

Well, RI already gambles something like 10X the national average, and Twin River already -is- a working class place. Like I said, the goal here isn’t lofty: it’s to keep RI’s population of gamblers from driving to New Bedford and Fall River instead of Twin River. If we can capture them in the city, even better. We can’t let our ideals get in the way of reality here. If MA and CT have this, we’re going to lose a fair portion of our state revenue -and- our GDP. The average RI’er spends something like $2,100 a year on RILOT games. That’s about $100 per week, per worker. The cat is already WAY out of the bag.

“and hipsters are sooner to go dumpster diving than drop $50 on blackjack”

I’m not sure about that. My 30+ hipster pals are starting to spend more at Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun, and even trips to Vegas. Table games are a compelling advantage, and a welcome distraction from the humdrum. I don’t like gambling, but I might be convinced to pop-in to a parlor to play $20 on a night out, especially if we’re walking right by it between dinner, theater, the show we’re seeing, and the bar.

“Rep. Trillo: Casino Research Should Seek Equal Revenue, Include Allens Ave.”

“…That is not the only option that he would like to see explored. He wants to know, for example, whether larger payouts for gambling winners would “hold customers.” He also told the Current that other locations should be considered for casino construction, including Allens Ave. in Providence:

I would love to see it in the knowledge district, and it would make a lot of sense. Somewhere near the port on Allens Ave., where there is water access for large vessels, like cruise ships.”

http://oceanstatecurrent.com/investigative-report/rep-trillo-casino-research-should-seek-equal-revenue-include-allens-ave/

Absolutely. If anyone wasn’t convinced of his ineptitude already, I think they were convinced by that Youtube video he made about his Quonset Casino idea…

On a side note, i wasn’t familar with the website this is from –The Ocean State Current, a very conservative blog. while I disagree with just about everything I read on it, what was interesting is that there are articles devoted to reporting on many of the same issues discussed on GCPVD (for example, there is an article about complete streets), and I think it provides a good counterpoint.

> Why not situate the casino along the water at India Point?

This would jive perfectly with my ‘handful of small casinos/parlors’ idea. A mid-sized parlor (capacity 200-500) at the old Shooters site would be small enough to avoid the kinds of disruption East Siders wouldn’t tolerate, and it would help attract more people to existing dancing/drinking/dining that’s within walking distance.

Plus, if a particular place doesn’t pan-out, we’re not stuck with a $200M taxpayer-funded empty space.

Bill, the problem with your plan is that the developers aren’t going to build a casino. With Twin Rivers almost flopping, and other casinos in the country experiencing the same thing, the market is in flux. Basically, casino gambling in the region is in a similar situation as a drug company who’s blockbuster product just went generic… Soon gambling is going to be ‘no big moneymaker’ because everyone is doing it. The idea is to keep Rhode Islanders from LEAVING to gamble. We’re on defense.

Developers wouldn’t even build Providence Place if we hadn’t fronted a TON of money for the parking garage and offer tax-free status on the property for decades. Projects like Dynamo House are totally stalled, and the city doesn’t even have the resources to force them to take care of the shell of a historic building they left to rot.

What I’m suggesting is to only allow small-time casino/parlors, businesses that are small enough to not cause major disruption to traffic and neighborhoods, small enough to be opened by local business-folks who are already in the entertainment business.

“intimate, very-high-stakes-only casino in one of the Newport mansions”

Brilliant! Our state has this misplaced belief that ‘if we do it like other places, we’ll be successful like they are’. The fact is that Rhode Island’s size, demographics, and history make it a very different kind of place. Cookie-cutter economic development and governance plans from places ten times our size and one quarter our density just aren’t going to be effective here.

If we must have a casino, it had better be a full on resort casino, plunked out in the middle of nowhere and kept as insulated as possible from the rest of the state.

Respectfully, I completely disagree with the idea that small urban gambling houses are going to bring a greater positive impact to Providence’s economy than the negative impact of having them around, and small gambling parlors are not going to attract out-of-staters who you would then hope would exit the casino to venture around our city. Urban gambling houses would kill Twin River, as the only people patronizing them are the current clientele at Twin River, and it would also be a forfeiture of whatever non-gambling venues exist there already.

No, if we need a casino, we want a casino that’s as much like Foxwoods as possible – and that’s Twin River with table games.

Now, on a more philosophical level? We’re a state that’s 50 miles long by 35 miles wide and a significant portion of that is within 10 minutes of the coastline. As a state, our #1 revenue source, indeed, the entire focus of our state, should be on tourism and hospitality – getting people into our state, making it easy for them to get around, and inviting them to enjoy everything our state has to offer. Waterfront, beaches, historic cities, museums, whatever, we should be turning as much of the state as we possibly can into a tourist trap.

And there’s much better ways of doing THAT than with a casino. Instead of shifting to the defensive and increasing the state’s gambling options because ‘everyone else is doing it,’

I respectfully disagree. There just isn’t enough of a gambling market to support CT, MA, and RI all having monster-sized ‘destination’ casinos. Foxwoods is already drowning in debt, as is Twin River.

The Patriots are a giant profitable franchise, but they wouldn’t be if each New England state started their own team.

The strategy should be ‘stop-loss’, prevent RIers from leaving to gamble 40 minutes away. It shouldn’t require public investment to allow smaller parlors. The ‘bad effects’ would be minimal, and they could be handled by local zoning and license boards.

The idea that we can compete in an already saturated market by building something ‘bigger and better’, when our neighbors have more resources and better management is folly.