1) Harrah’s says its casino will provide 3,500 construction jobs, 3,800 full-time jobs and an unspecified number of part-time jobs. Do you have any concrete ideas for creating a similar number of jobs?

We should make thought-out economic development decisions that complement our existing attractions and tax base, not decimate them. Job retention is as critical as job creation.

2) Harrah’s is the world’s largest gambling company, part of the Fortune 500 and until recently the only investment-grade casino company. If Rhode Island is to have a casino, why not Harrah’s?

Because this is a bad deal for all Rhode Islanders. It amends our Constitution to give Harrah’s — or its designee in the likely event of a sale — exclusive rights to a no-bid casino for life that will negatively impact state finances — forever.

3) Isn’t it time the Narragansett Indian Tribe gets an economic development project such as a casino to help its members?

This is a privately owned Harrah’s casino, not a tribe economic development project. Harrah’s would own 95 percent of the no-bid casino and has complete control. Any reference to a “Narragansett Indian Casino” is illusory.

4) Save Our State got most of its money from Lincoln Park and Newport Grand. Critics say your group’s main goal is to protect those businesses from competition. Are they right?

SOS’s goal is to protect Rhode Island’s common interest. Our hundreds of donors have dozens of reasons why they object to this bad deal. All have given what they could afford to fight it.

5) Harrah’s is promising $144 million a year in tax relief. Don’t Rhode Islanders already pay enough taxes and do you have any alternative ideas for comparable tax relief?

We support meaningful tax relief proposals — this isn’t one of them. Any claims about property tax relief are false. Losses at existing gaming venues and slippage payments will create a severe state budget shortfall.

6) If Harrah’s gets its casino, would your members Lincoln Park and Newport Grand seek table games or a lower tax?

If Harrah’s pays 25 percent as opposed to the 60 percent existing gaming facilities pay, these venues would be forced to explore any and all options to simply survive on this incredibly uneven playing field.

7) What should be included in a contract between the state and Harrah’s?

Tax equity, gaming regulation by a neutral party, no constitutional amendment and an agreement not to compete with existing entertainment venues. In short, exactly what other gaming venues in Rhode Island are subject to.

8) Do you have any evidence that shows casinos hurt the areas where they locate?

Lots, but one need look no farther than Louisiana, a state that relied on Harrah’s to be its economic development savior, only to be severely disappointed when massive layoffs nearly brought the city of New Orleans to its knees.

9) You say that the casino will kill off business at local restaurants. But what about all the new restaurants opening in downtown Providence and at Lincoln Park. Aren’t they going to hurt existing restaurants?

To use the words of a June 20, 2004, Providence Journal editorial, “Harrah’s wreckage would ... include fine restaurants and the Providence Performing Arts Center. Indeed, the Providence renaissance could be stopped cold, and perhaps go into high-speed reverse.”

10) Some Rhode Islanders say that anti-casino effort is racist since the casino would offer economic development opportunities for Narragansetts and jobs for many in minority communities. How do you counter this?

Speaking out against a no-bid, backroom deal that will alter our state constitution forever isn’t a racist act; it’s a sensible one and an overwhelming majority of Rhode Islanders recognize that.

—Scott Mayerowitz