ProJo Editors: Confused on Gambling
Ian Donnis points to the ProJo editorial pushing for an override of the Governor’s veto of the most recent Casino ballot question and reminds us that, not so long ago, the ProJo was decidedly anti-casino. Ian puts the change in the ProJo’s stance towards gambling at around 2006 and some digging in the AR archives supports that. Back in 2006, I posted on the aforementioned ProJo switcheroo and that post had an addendum re-stating the research done by Dan Yorke, who looked at previous casino-related ProJo editorials:
“Just Say No to Casino” 1994 – Against the economics of it vs. other options.
“No Casino” November 6, 1994 – About the inherent corruption around casinos.
“Vote No in West Warwick” June 1999 – Money spent by RIers in a casino will go out of state.
“Allow Vote on Casino” – June 6, 2000 – A big casino will raise cost of public services (police, fire), hurt local businesses, hurt the quality of life and send $ out of state. But voters should decide.
“Put Casino to Vote” June 20, 2004 – Harrah’s casino would hurt RI, create a net outflow of $ and potentially fuel corruption. But voters should decide.
Their most recent editorial essentially says that while there is a lot of bad stuff and serious unanswered questions with the casino ballot question they still support it. (Kind of like what they said about the recent health care reform, incidentally). But they then argue that the General Assembly should return from their break, make some fixes and override the Governor’s veto for fear of losing gambling revenue to Massachusetts. Confused.