The request by Premier Gaming to change the terms of its lease agreement with the city is no small matter, and the Mayor and Board of Alderman should take their time and weigh it carefully before making a decision on it. Each item detailed in The Democrat’s Wednesday story about the proposal requires careful scrutiny.

To begin with, if the changes are granted, the city will have a new partner, a California venture capital firm that will exercise rights and influence over the future activities of the casino. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but city leaders must fully understand all the ramifications before agreeing to the proposed amendments.

Some of the other proposed changes seem like classic bait-and-switch: Get an agreement based on one set of terms and then, after the project is under way, ask for better ones.

The city should not acquiesce to the changes without negotiating fair compensation.

For example, if it’s important to the developer to make what is supposed to be a $1 million contribution for recreation or a civil rights museum over five years rather than in a lump-sum payment, we should demand an increase in the overall amount to be paid. Every businessperson knows that money in hand is more valuable than money to be paid in the future. So if Premier wants to spread out its payments, the total should be substantially more.

Dropping the developer’s requirement to create a public park or botanical gardens in favor of a maximum $300,000 payment for a park and overflow parking also could be significant.

If Premier truly intends to be a contributing member of our community, it should not try to cheap out on the park space. If it wants the city to make a concession there, perhaps in exchange it should commit to making an annual payment to beautify and maintain the bluff above.

There is more in this proposal, as outlined in Lindsey Shelton’s excellent article in Wednesday’s edition, than can be commented on here — or probably fully understood by city officials in the time available before tonight’s special board of aldermen meeting.

The mayor and board should not let themselves be rushed into hasty acceptance of the proposed changes. Rather, they should study them carefully and negotiate with Premier.

For its part, Premier should understand this and not press for a quick decision. To do otherwise would send a disappointing signal about what kind of corporate citizen it intends to be.

 

Bill Furlow

Natchez