With respect to the recent suggestion that a third casino be permitted in Connecticut, all parties note that such action will require legislative changes. It seems odd that all suggestions thus far, including David Collins' column, "How about a Bridgeport casino too?" (Nov. 14), assume that such additional casinos would be run by the tribes. Why?

If the compact limiting casinos to tribes must be reopened, why not allow others inclined to invest the opportunity? All arguments for the additional casino(s) would still apply - local job creation, tax revenue, etc.

New casinos would apparently not be located on tribal territory and would effectively simply be another business.

Why should Connecticut limit the potential for others to participate in the industry?

It seems far fairer, if additional casinos are to be developed, to allow any developer with the money and the will to compete.

There is no reason to suppose that only the tribes have the capacity to run casinos. There is abundant evidence that others can do so successfully.

Additional gambling is not clearly advantageous, but if it is to occur, all should have the option to participate.