Backers say a Narragansett Indian casino would create jobs, boost tourism and provide tax relief, but such claims appear to be carrying little weight among members of the Washington County Regional Planning Council.

By a 6-to-1 vote, the council recently passed a resolution that opposes the casino and expresses strong opposition to the idea of changing the state Constitution to allow an out-of-state company to run one.

The vote, which was not on the regional council's meeting agenda, was taken after New Shoreham member Robert Smith told other members that the New Shoreham Town Council had passed a resolution opposing the casino. That prompted others to chime in and resulted in a vote, said Sue Barker, the council's executive director.

"It was an impromptu thing," she said.

Smith said yesterday that he is concerned about the precedent the casino ballot question could create by changing the state Constitution to give a private company special permission to run a casino in West Warwick.

He said he made the motion after realizing that other town council members in South County felt the same way.

"That's what struck me, that the neighboring communities to West Warwick felt that this will not help their communities in terms of employment," he said.

Clare Eckert, a spokeswoman for the pro-casino group Rhode Islanders for Jobs and Tax Relief, said in an e-mail yesterday that South County officials have benefited from Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun casinos in Connecticut, but want to deny such benefits to the rest of Rhode Island.

"South County officials should be supporting the Narragansett Indian casino, a $1-billion economic development initiative that will create more than 6,000 new jobs in Rhode Island, cut property taxes throughout South County communities and increase tourism,," she wrote.

Barker said regional council members from two towns -- Charlestown and North Kingstown -- were not present for the Sept. 21 vote opposing the casino. The town councils in those towns are among six in South County, including New Shoreham, Exeter, Richmond and South Kingstown that have also passed resolutions opposing the casino, according to local town clerks.

The one dissenting vote at the regional council meeting was from Hopkinton's member, Council President Beverly Kenney.

Kenney, who declined to discuss her own views on a casino, said the Hopkinton council discussed the issue and wants voters to make up their own minds.

"Most everyone was in consensus that the voters had the right one way or another" to decide, she said.

The Westerly Town Council also has not voted on the casino issue, according to the town clerk's office.

In Narragansett, a no-casino resolution was defeated on a 3-to-2 vote this week. One of the two votes for the resolution came from Councilman George Tracy, Narragansett's representative on the regional council.

The regional council, which provides a forum for the towns to work together on issues such as development and open space preservation, has nine members, each a town council member in his or her respective town. The member towns are Charlestown, Exeter, Hopkinton, Narragansett, New Shoreham, North Kingstown, Richmond, South Kingstown and Westerly.

Barker announced the regional council's vote in a news release this week, saying members are concerned about "the practical and economic effects a casino would have on the citizens of Rhode Island."

Other groups opposing the casino include the Rhode Island State Council of Churches and the Rhode Island Police Chiefs Association, both of which announced their positions last month.

The church group said the casino, rather than being a road to opportunity, is a road to hell. The police chiefs group said the casino would lead to more crime, including theft, fraud, assaults, drunken driving and prostitution.


BY RANDAL EDGAR
Journal Staff Writer