We’ve all heard the term, “Buyer, beware,” but the reverse is also true, “Seller, beware.”

As we consider the City of Natchez’s pending decision regarding the casino development at city-owned Roth Hill, the seller — city residents — should be concerned and on alert.

Few people — including the aldermen — seem to know the full extent of negotiations or the developers’ future plans.

All the public knows is what little bits it can read from the publicly released information.

In the latest, developers are seeking to change items from the original lease option agreement — almost all of which seem more favorable to developers than to the city.

City leaders would be wise to get outside advice and consider simply saying, “No” to anything to which they don’t fully understand.

The proposed amendment includes:

• Less restrictive payment terms including the potential of only a fraction of what was promised for a community development fund — which would be dependent on gaming revenues. That should be a red flag.

• Nearly double the property that was originally included. Residents and aldermen are wise to ask, “When was that need discovered and why are we only now hearing about it, after site work has begun?”

• And, perhaps most worrisome, the clear statement that developers seek the ability to sell their interests to other companies. When the city first began talks with the then lead developer, Lane Company, one of their selling points was that they were a one-stop shop. They had the funding, the planning and everything else, altogether. The city would know exactly with whom they would be doing business. Now, who knows who will wind up in possession of the 48 years left on the alleged site lease?

Caution should be exercised.

And, perhaps most worrisome, the clear statement that developers seek the ability to sell their interests to other companies. When the city first began talks with the then lead developer, Lane Company, one of their selling points was that they were a one-stop shop. They had the funding, the planning and everything else, altogether. The city would know exactly with whom they would be doing business. Now, who knows who will wind up in possession of the 48 years left on the alleged site lease?
Caution should be exercised.