Here and there around social media and other communication channels in Tiverton, folks have been speculating that Twin River Tiverton has taken a hit and isn’t going to be the revenue generator that people expected.  This talk seems to trace back to an article on GoLocalProv headlined, “Revenue Numbers at Twin River’s New Tiverton Casino Down 19 Percent.”

GoLocal’s information is typically reliable, but it tends to be sensationalist.  If you’re looking for the leading edge of tomorrow’s potential controversies, it’s a good place to look, but thorough assessment of news isn’t its forte.  In this case, the missing information is something that Tiverton residents have an advantage in knowing:  what the casino’s owners had projected for the first year of operation.

As we know from our local budget debate in April and May, the big questions were when the casino would open, what its hours would be, and what Tiverton could expect in revenue.  As projected by the state and reflected in Budget #2, the casino opened 24/7 on September 1st, with projected revenue for the 10 months of the fiscal year of $948,583, or an average of $94,858 per month.  Ultimately, supporters of higher taxes managed to convince voters at the financial town referendum (FTR) that this was too high.

In its first month of operation, Twin River Tiverton generated $163,807 for the town, which was 73% more than the monthly projection.  The question of concern to Tiverton taxpayers is whether the drop in October was more than that, and it wasn’t.  According to GoLocal, the casino took in $7,573,687 from video terminals, of which Tiverton gets 1.45%, and $1,696,431 from table games, of which Tiverton gets 1%.

There may be small differences due to the timing of payments or other adjustments, but this implies that Tiverton’s casino gambling revenue for October will be $126,783, which is still 34% more than projected.  Even if the first month benefited from enthusiasm over something brand new, if October’s revenue continues through June, Tiverton will end the fiscal year with $1.3 million (plus $100,000 from sports betting).

Starting next year, state law guarantees Tiverton $3 million minimum from the casino each year.  We’ll have to wait and see whether lawmakers will take that guarantee away in a few years if revenue doesn’t increase, but for the time being, everything continues to be on track.

For a quick post just before the election, let’s take up the suggestion from some folks that the Tiverton Taxpayers Association (TTA) is some sort of “special interest.”  A basic question must come first:  What is a special interest?

For those of us who study political philosophy, “special interest” is a completely neutral term.  It refers to an organization or group whose motivation for political activity is not general, but specific, or special.  If your group advocates for things that affect everybody equally (or, at least, that don’t benefit your group in particular), you are a “general interest.”  If your group is trying to get taxpayer dollars for something that uniquely benefits your group, then you’re a “special interest.”

There’s nothing wrong with that.  To some extent, it’s how our government is supposed to work.  But that’s what the words mean.

TTA advocates for increased value for the taxpayer dollar and, where appropriate, lower taxes.  That applies to everybody.  Even if one were to insist that TTA members have more-expensive houses (and therefore pay higher taxes), the reality is that the benefits of TTA advocacy are broadly distributed.  That’s true not only because every homeowner pays taxes, but also because a high tax rate in Tiverton appears to reduce the value of high-end houses, which shifts the tax burden toward the owners of lower-end houses.  In short, TTA is a general interest group.

So what would be a special interest group?  One obvious example would be a labor union representing a category of town employees.  The entire mission of the unions is to increase the compensation and leverage of their members.  That will often involve promoting the work that union members do (which is theoretically of general benefit), but the unions’ role in our system is to advocate for the employees as a special group.  The term, “special interest,” could also apply (but less strongly) to residents who rely on a particular service that other residents don’t use.

By any of these measures, TTA cannot reasonably be called a “special interest.”

Using taxpayer dollars, the Town of Tiverton sent a booklet to Tiverton residents that claims to be a “Voter Information Guide” about the “Proposed Amendments to the Town Charter.”  Because it has the town seal on the cover, and because Section 1218 of the Home Rule Charter would make it illegal to send campaign advocacy using town resources, voters might assume that the booklet provides straightforward, objective information to educate them about the ballot questions and make a decision about whether the charter changes they would make are a good idea.  That is why Section 1218 allows “the distribution or publication of election, ballot question, or referendum information by the Town Clerk, the Board of Canvassers, or a Charter Review Commission.”

However, the Voter Information Guide is not objective, and according Town Clerk Nancy Mello, the content was written by the Town Solicitor and the Town Council.  That would be the same Town Solicitor who stands to gain substantial power if the charter changes go through and the same Town Council that blocked the elected Charter Review Commission’s proposals and pushed its own onto the ballot.  Unsurprisingly, the guide is not simply “information”; it’s advocacy.

Thus, on Question 10, voters are told that the “intent… is to ensure that this revenue is used in a manner that will bring a long-term financial benefit” and “provide a reduction in the property tax requirement.”  That is not, objectively, what the charter change would do, and based on years’ worth of statements from members of the council, it isn’t even clear that it is the “intent” of the people who wrote it.

The “Effect of Change” section about Question 11 is even more obviously advocacy:  “Improves the Financial Town Referendum process, clarifies language to lessen the likelihood of litigation and charter complaints, and brings the Tiverton Financial Town Referendum process in line with the budget processes for other Rhode Island municipalities with financial referendums.”  This is not only opinion, but it is opinion with a purpose.  The word “improves” shows that the authors of that sentence are encouraging voters to approve Question 11.

Whether this electioneering by the Town Council crosses the line and violates the charter would have to be the subject of a charter complaint.  Of course, if Question #6 passes, then the same Town Solicitor who helped the council block other charter changes, who helped to write the guide, and who can be fired if he makes the Town Council unhappy would have the power to dismiss the complaint, with no standard of review or appeal process.

(Incidentally, the Voter Information Guide has the wrong information about polling places.  For the correct locations, see here.)

Follow the Daily Tiverton Truth Flash on Facebook.