With due respect, I am not sure what Southampton Town Supervisor Patrick Heaney means, in connection with the Shinnecock casino project, when he says that casinos "suck the decency out of a community" ["Town's Casino Debt Piles Up," July 29]. Rather strong words. Would this characterization apply to movie houses with x-rated films and legal nightclubs in Southampton Town? If so, why would the town spend over a half million dollars of taxpayers' money to oppose the project in support of an ethical position of dubious merit applied discriminatively to the Shinnecock casino? Considering that the town has no jurisdiction in the matter, should not a referendum have been held to spend such amount on a matter that is ultra vires?

A casino, like the New York State Lottery, is a for-profit gambling project, the one private, the other state. What's the difference? Why permit the selling of state lottery tickets in retail outlets (very "decent"?) but oppose casino gambling as something that "sucks"? A casino, like the state lottery or a non-profit charity, takes money for chances that yield a gain or a loss to the wager, while the non-profit takes in money and provides nothing to the contributor. The casino provides services to the community through taxes, the non-profits direct services to a specific group only. Additionally, the casino might provide charitable contributions in addition to jobs.

So, then, which organization "sucks"—the casino/state lottery, or the non-profit?

The casino, like federal, state and local government, is an income redistribution mechanism—as is the state lottery. But while the redistribution by the casino is voluntary (for only those who wish to play), that by government is compulsory on the entire population within the relevant jurisdiction. Why, then, the blatant hypocrisy in regard to the Shinnecock casino project?

DAVID CARNEY