A better deal for Rhode Island

After months of wrangling and insults, peace has broken out between International Game Technology and Twin River casino over a 20-year plan for the state’s gambling industry. Can an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians be far behind?

 Twin River had bitterly opposed a no-bid deal for IGT crafted by Gov. Gina Raimondo, which it said would leave it with uncompetitive IGT machines on its floor, putting it in a weak competitive position with Massachusetts’ new casinos. Twin River generates a good deal of the gambling income that is the state’s third largest source of revenue.

 Twin River mounted a newspaper campaign pointing out serious flaws in the agreement. IGT fought back with its own ads showing the importance of high-paying, high-tech jobs to the Rhode Island economy.

 The differences have been largely resolved, and protections for Rhode Island taxpayers strengthened, in a new deal between IGT and Twin River, unveiled Thursday.

 While any no-bid deal must be thoroughly vetted lest the taxpayers get cheated, the agreement seems to include many advantages for the public. They could prove attractive to the General Assembly, which would have to vote to override the state law that requires projects to be bid.

 -Jobs: IGT would guarantee 1,100 jobs in Rhode Island paying an aggregate exceeding 250% of minimum wage. With a minimum wage of $10.50, that guarantees its average job will pay $54,000. The earlier proposal lacked such a guarantee.

 -Economic development: IGT would proceed with $150 million in investment in Rhode Island, while Twin River would spend $100 million, including a 50,000-square-foot expansion in Lincoln.

 -Protecting Twin River’s floor: IGT and Twin River would form a new company that will jointly manage video lottery terminals — the machines on the floor. IGT-made machines would make up only 40% of the floor, with at least seven other companies providing VLTs. With 8% of machines replaced each year, that should draw more players in for a fresh experience.

 Concerns are sure to be raised that the deal would be no-bid, like the original. Also, like the original, it would stretch out for 20 years — a risk, given that technology changes constantly and no one can be sure that IGT will be cutting-edge that far into the future.

 But that is, of course, balanced by the jobs and economic development promises that are part of the deal. And certainly, IGT will face enormous pressures in the marketplace to keep up with the times.

 The legislature will have to weigh those concerns. Thus far, both House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello and Senate President Dominick Ruggerio seem positive. Certainly a détente between IGT and Twin River reduces a great deal of the tension and political risk associated with the earlier IGT agreement.

 The residue of that earlier battle includes an ethics complaint against the governor over her cozy political relationship with an IGT lobbyist, and a Twin River official’s deeply troubling testimony that Raimondo aide Brett Smiley had threatened to use the state’s regulatory powers against the company because of its opposition to the original deal.

 We look forward to further analysis and explanations of the benefits and drawbacks of this deal to the people of Rhode Island.