01:00 AM EST on Saturday, April 1, 2006

Donald Trump's interest in building a casino near the Johnston landfill speaks strongly to something the casino industry has long recognized: Rhode Island is one of America's best gambling markets.

Note that Mr. Trump, a real-estate tycoon and star of TV's The Apprentice, is willing to invest money in dipping his toe into the Ocean State in spite of daunting economic and political challenges: Johnston officials' concerns; the thriving slots emporiums in Lincoln and Newport; the proposal of Harrah's and the Narragansett Indians to build a resort casino in West Warwick; the possibility (though apparently not this year) that the Massachusetts legislature will give the go-ahead to slots; and the constitutional hurdles to bringing in more casino gambling.

This all raises questions that no one seems prepared to answer. Should there be a competitive bidding process for a full-fledged casino in Rhode Island? Should the Narragansett Indians' proposal be put to the state's voters (as we have long advocated)? Will Governor Carcieri -- who, with the legislature, oversaw the largest expansion of casino gambling in state history, at Lincoln Park and Newport Grand -- succeed in preventing competition from a full-fledged casino (with card games, etc.)?

Some things seem clear: "The Donald" -- Mr. Trump -- and his colleagues would have to tweak their plan to have any shot at making it in Rhode Island. Their proposal for a 4,000-plus-seat theater instantly sounds an alarm, since there's little chance that politicians and the public would go along with its taking business away from the Providence Performing Arts Center. Clearly, the planners have to rethink that one, or else assure the Ocean State of the future viability of Broadway shows at the PPAC.

As Mr. Trump's people acknowledge, something would also have to be done about the smells from the state landfill, two miles from the proposed casino site.

But the biggest challenge is the political one of getting a question through the legislature and onto the ballot that meets constitutional muster. (The state Supreme Court has ruled that casinos must be "operated" by the state.)

Meanwhile, state Rep. Timothy Williamson (D.-West Warwick) has unveiled a casino bill that looks far superior to the trial balloon he sent up earlier this year. He proposes to push for a Narragansett Indian casino through two ballot questions: a general one, to change the constitution to allow for a casino, and a second, more specific one, to result from state officials' hammering out the details.

As an aside, logic suggests that if there is to be a full-service casino in Rhode Island, the best place for it would be on the Providence waterfront, along Allens Avenue. Tour boats could berth there, and compared with a suburban location, less open space would be consumed. Moreover, patrons would not be drawn away from the capital city's cultural institutions, including the PPAC. But logic and politics are sometimes strangers.

Ultimately, this will all have to be sorted out through ballot questions. Let the voters decide the future of casino gambling in the Ocean State. Then we can finally lay the issue to rest and focus on such pressing public concerns as improving the state's schools and energizing its economy.